ADVANCE AND UNEDITED TEXT
(ENGLISH ONLY)
Sixty-fourth session
Item 78(b) of the provisional agenda*
Oceans and the law of the sea: sustainable
fisheries, including through the 1995 Agreement
for the Implementation of the Provisions of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
of 10 December 1982 relating to the
Conservation and Management of Straddling
Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks,
and related instruments
Actions taken by States and regional fisheries management
organizations and arrangements to give effect to paragraphs 83 to
90 of General Assembly resolution 61/105 of 8 December 2006 on
Sustainable fisheries, including through the 1995 Agreement for
the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to
the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and
Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, and related instruments
Report of the Secretary-General
Summary
The present report is prepared pursuant to General Assembly resolution 61/105,
paragraphs 80 and 90, in which the General Assembly requested States and regional
fisheries management organizations and arrangements (RFMO/As) to sustainably
manage fisheries, regulate bottom fisheries and protect vulnerable marine ecosystems
(VMEs). Notably, paragraph 91 of the resolution requested the Secretary-General, in
cooperation with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), to
include in his report concerning fisheries to the General Assembly at its sixty-fourth
session a section on the actions taken by States and RFMO/As in response to paragraphs
83 to 90 of the resolution.
The report describes the most vulnerable marine ecosystems and the impacts of
bottom fishing on such ecosystems and outlines actions taken by States and RFMO/As
to adopt and implement measures aimed at regulating bottom fisheries and protecting
VMEs from destructive fishing practices. Furthermore, it describes recent initiatives by
States to establish new RFMO/As in the North-West and South Pacific with the
competence to regulate bottom fisheries and interim measures adopted by these States
pending the establishment of such organizations or arrangements.
A/64/…
The report is a follow-up to the report of the Secretary-General on “Impacts of fishing
on vulnerable marine ecosystems: actions taken by States and regional fisheries
management organizations and arrangements to give effect to paragraphs 66 to 69 of the
General Assembly resolution 59/25 on sustainable fisheries, regarding the impacts of
fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems” (A/61/154). It should be read in conjunction
with earlier interim reports of the Secretary-General on the measures taken by States and
RFMO/As to implement resolution 61/105 (A/62/260, paras. 60-96 and A/63/128,
paras.63-78).
* A/64/150
2
A/64/…
Contents
Paragraphs Page
Abbreviations………………………..……………………………….
5
I. Introduction………………………………………………………….
II. Vulnerable marine ecosystems and bottom fishing activities……....
A. Vulnerable marine ecoystems: an updated review…………..….
1. Seamounts………………………………………………......
1-7
8-43
11-28
13-17
7
8
9
10
2. Hydrothermal vents…………………………………………
3. Cold water corals……………………………………………
4. Other vulnerable marine ecoystems……………………...…
B. Impacts of bottom fisheries on vulnerable marine ecosystems...
18-20
21-25
26-28
29-43
11
12
14
15
31-37
15
38-43
17
44-188
20
49-95
51-65
21
22
66-95
96-183
97-100
26
35
35
101-120
36
121-137
41
138-171
46
172-183
56
184-188
59
184
59
1.
2.
Fishing gears and practices used in deep-sea fisheries…….
Impacts of bottom fishing gears on vulnerable marine
ecosystems and associated biodiversity…………………….
III. Actions taken by States and regional fisheries management
organizations and arrangements to adopt and implement measures to
address the impacts of bottom fisheries on vulnerable marine
ecosystems …………………………………………………...………
A. Actions taken by regional fisheries management organizations
and arrangements with competence to regulate bottom
fisheries......................................................................................
1. Overview of actions taken by RFMO/As…………………...
2. Measures taken by competent RFMO/As to implement
paragraphs 83 (a) to (d) of resolution 61/105…………….…
B. Actions taken by States to regulate bottom fisheries …….….….
1. Overview of actions taken by States ………………….….…
2. Measures taken by States in areas within national
jurisdiction ………………...……..…………………….……
3. Implementation by States of measures adopted by
competent RFMO/As ………….….……………………..….
4.
Establishment of new RFMO/As with competence to
regulate bottom fisheries and adoption and implementation
of interim measures ……………………...………………..…
5.
Measures taken by States for areas where no competent
RFMO/A exists …………………….……………………...…
C. Actions taken by States and competent RFMO/As to make
adopted measures publicly available……………………….…….
1. Publicity of measures adopted by competent RFMO/As……
3
A/64/…
2. Publicity of measures adopted by States …………….……...
IV. Activities of FAO to promote the regulation of bottom fisheries and
the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems ……………….….…
A. Development of the International Guidelines for the
Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas ………..….
B. Development of a global database of information on vulnerable
ecosystems beyond national jurisdiction ……………………...…
185-188
60
189-198
61
193-194
62
195-198
63
V. Concluding remarks…………………………………………….……..
199-202
64
Annex
List of respondents to the questionnaire................................................
4
66
A/64/…
Abbreviations
BPAs
CBD
CCAMLR
COFI
EC
EEZ
Benthic Protected Areas
Convention on Biological Diversity
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources
Commission for the Conservation of Southern
Bluefin Tuna
FAO Committee on Fisheries
European Community
Exclusive economic zone
EU
FAD
FAO
European Union
Fish Aggregating Device
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FFA
FIRMS
GFCM
HERMES
IGO
IUU fishing
South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency
Fishery Resources Monitoring System
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean
Hotspot Ecosystems Research on the Margins
of European Seas
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas
International Council for the Exploration of the
Sea
International governmental organization
Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing
MPA
MSR
NAFO
NASCO
NEAFC
NGO
Marine protected area
Marine Scientific Research
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization
North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission
Non-governmental organization
NOAA
NWPO
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Management of High Seas Bottom Fisheries in the North
Western Pacific Ocean
CCSBT
IATTC
ICCAT
ICES
5
A/64/…
OSPAR
PECMAS
RFMO/A
SEAFO
SIODFA
SIOFA
SPC
SPRFMO
VMEs
VMS
WCPFC
6
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment
of the North-East Atlantic
Permanent Committee on Management and Science
Regional fisheries management organization and
arrangement
South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization
Southern Indian Ocean Deepwater Fisheries
Association
South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement
Secretariat of the Pacific Community
South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation
Vulnerable marine ecosystems
Vessel Monitoring System
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Commission
A/64/…
I.
Introduction
1. At its sixty-first session, the General Assembly adopted paragraphs 80 to 91 of
resolution 61/105 which, inter alia, welcomed the important progress made by States and
regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements (RFMO/As) with the
competence to regulate bottom fisheries to give effect to the relevant provisions of its
resolution 59/25 to address the impact of fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems
(VMEs), and called upon States to take action immediately, individually and through
RFMO/As, to sustainably manage fish stocks and protect VMEs from destructive fishing
practices.
2. The General Assembly also called upon RFMO/As with the competence to regulate
bottom fisheries to adopt and implement conservation and management measures, in
accordance with the precautionary approach, ecosystems approaches and international law,
as a matter of priority, but not later than 31 December 2008, to regulate bottom fishing
activities and protect VMEs.
3. Furthermore, the General Assembly called upon States participating in negotiations to
establish a RFMO/A competent to regulate bottom fisheries to expedite their negotiations
and, by no later than 31 December 2007, to adopt and implement interim measures,
consistent with the resolution, to regulate bottom fishing activities and protect VMEs.
4. In addition, the General Assembly called upon flag States to either adopt and
implement measures to regulate bottom fisheries and protect VMEs or cease to authorize
fishing vessels flying their flag to conduct bottom fisheries in areas beyond national
jurisdiction where there was no RFMO/A with the competence to regulate bottom fisheries
or interim measures in force, until conservation and management measures or interim
measures to regulate bottom fisheries and protect VMEs, consistent with the resolution,
were adopted for such areas. The General Assembly also required that all measures
adopted by States and RFMO/As pursuant to the resolution be made publicly available.
5. Lastly, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to provide to its sixtyfourth session in 2009, a report on the actions taken by States and RFMO/As in response
to paragraphs 83 to 90 of the resolution, to allow it to conduct a further review of such
actions at that session, with a view to further recommendations, where necessary.
6. Following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 63/112 of 5 December 2008,
which also requested the Secretary-General, as in paragraph 91 of resolution 61/105, to
report on actions taken to give effect to paragraphs 83 to 90 of resolution 61/105, the
Secretary-General circulated a questionnaire to States and RFMO/As inviting them to
7
A/64/…
submit detailed information on actions they had taken to implement the latter with a view
to facilitating a further review of such actions. Information was also requested from the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), other relevant
intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
7. In response, submissions were received from 28 States, the European Community
(EC), 11 RFMO/As and FAO, as well as from IGOs and NGOs (see Annex). The report is
based on the information provided by States and RFMO/As, as well as other relevant
information. The Secretary-General wishes to express his appreciation for these
submissions.
II.
Vulnerable marine ecosystems and bottom fishing activities
8. Earlier reports of the Secretary-General have provided detailed descriptions of VMEs,
in particular, VMEs in the deep-sea beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (see, for
example, A/58/65, A/59/62, A/60/63/Add.1 and A/61/154).
9. VMEs are identified by the vulnerabilities of their components and are defined by
those vulnerable components. Vulnerability is related to the likelihood that a population,
community, or habitat will experience substantial alteration due to short-term or chronic
disturbance, and the likelihood that it will recover, and in what time frame. These are, in
turn, related to the characteristics of the ecosystems themselves, especially biological and
structural aspects. VME features may be physically or functionally fragile. The most
vulnerable ecosystems are those that are both easily disturbed and very slow to recover, or
may never recover.1 The related concept of sensitive habitats has recently been defined as
those habitats that are easily adversely affected by human activity, and/or those where an
affected area is expected to recover only over a very long period, or not at all.2
10. The vulnerability of populations, communities and habitats must be assessed relative to
specific threats. Some features, particularly those that are physically fragile or inherently
rare, may be vulnerable to most forms of disturbance, but the vulnerability of some
populations, communities and habitats may vary greatly depending on the type of fishing
gear used or the kind of disturbance experienced.3 The risks to a marine ecosystem are
FAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No.
881.
2 ICES, Report of the Working Group on Deep-water Ecology (Copenhagen, 2005).
3 FAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No.
881.
1
8
A/64/…
determined by its vulnerability, the probability of a threat occurring and the mitigation
means applied to the threat.4
A.
Vulnerable marine ecosystems: an updated review
11. All ecosystems are hierarchical, with each lower level containing smaller and less
heterogeneous units within it, yet none of the units are truly homogeneous or exist without
external linkages to other units. Within such hierarchies, the examples of VMEs identified
in General Assembly resolution 61/105 (i.e. seamounts, hydrothermal vents and cold water
corals)5 approximate, in technical terms, to ecotopes which are the finest scale units used
in mapping ecosystems. Such VMEs may be expected to occur as numerous, small
patches, scattered amongst larger areas of larger ecosystems. There is no absolute standard
for how finely these hierarchies of systems should be divided and RFMO/As must choose
appropriate spatial and ecological scales. Too fine a division would impose severe
management costs in mapping ecosystems and in enforcing any spatially-specific
management measures. However, too coarse a division would risk applying management
measures broadly, including not applying them in areas where they are required, or
applying them in areas where they are not required. It would also risk lowering the
perceived vulnerability of ecosystems by averaging across small patches with highlyvulnerable components and larger areas with only low vulnerability, perhaps eliminating
VME status where it is merited and thus failing to focus attention where it is most
needed.6
12. While no marine ecosystem is fully independent of others, each contains its own major
energy sources. Except for those associated with hydrothermal vents, which provide
energy at depth, all deep-sea ecosystems are powered by primary production in the
overlying, sunlit photic zone. Most deep-sea ecosystems, therefore, include the whole
water column from seabed to surface. Because of the mobility of the overlying waters, in
many cases, a small patch of deep seabed will be connected to a much larger area of the
near-surface layers, making benthic organisms potentially vulnerable to extensive human
activities in the surface layers. On the other hand, the mobility of the overlying waters
ICES, Report of the Working Group on Deep-water Ecology (2008).
Seamounts are bathymetric features, hydrothermal vents are geological features and corals are organisms. Those examples can be seen
as convenient labels for the ecosystems characteristic of seamounts and the areas around vents, plus those ecosystems characterized by
cold-water corals.
6 FAO Fisheries Report No. 829.
4
5
9
A/64/…
could buffer benthic organisms from the consequences of intense, local activity near the
surface.7
1.
Seamounts
13. Seamounts are undersea mountains of tectonic and/or volcanic origin. They are
ubiquitous features of the world's underwater topography and may play an important role
in patterns of marine biogeography, potentially supporting high biodiversity and unique
biological communities. They are both numerous and highly variable, ranging from
isolated submarine volcanic peaks to small knolls on mid-ocean ridges. The larger ones
can support multiple, different ecosystems, such as a relatively-shallow, flat and muddy
plateau on their peaks, flanked by steep, rocky slopes bearing very different benthic
communities.
14. Seamounts are often highly productive ecosystems and may act as feeding grounds for
fish, marine mammals and seabirds, although the mechanisms by which the features affect
water flows and thus generate the enhanced productivity remain unclear. They may act as
biological hot spots in the oceans and often attract a high abundance and diversity of large
predators, such as sharks, tuna, billfish, turtles, seabirds and marine mammals. Almost
every seamount that has been sampled has revealed markedly high levels of new species.
Seamount communities are distinct from the surrounding deep-sea fauna and, therefore,
are highly endemic.8
15. Seamounts themselves are large masses of rock and their basic bathymetry is not
particularly vulnerable to the impacts of fishing. Seamount ecosystems may nevertheless
be highly vulnerable to disturbance because of the coral “forests” and large sponges which
can be abundant on the flanks of the bathymetric features. The vulnerability of seamount
ecosystems is thus largely the same as the vulnerability of other coral and sponge
ecosystems. While the ecological roles of corals and sponges on seamounts are little
different to their roles in other areas, the value of seamount ecosystems may be higher
because of the “biodiversity” and endemism.9
16. Several seamounts have been identified in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, but only a
few in the Indian Ocean. They have been targeted for resource extraction such as fisheries
and mining, but are ecologically vulnerable to such exploitation. At a global scale their
FAO Fisheries Report No. 829.
Menezes, “Demersal fish assemblages in the Atlantic archipelagos of the Azorees, Madeira
and Cape Verde”, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Oceanography and Fisheries (University of the Azores, Portugal, 2003).
9 http://pacific.sdsc.edu/seamounts./ An online information system for seamount biology .
7
8 G.
10
A/64/…
biodiversity is poorly known with relatively few (less than 200 of an estimated 100,000)
seamounts having been studied in any detail. Any estimates in terms of the number of
species is likely to be conservative because of the limited numbers of samples and
limitations of sampling gear. 10
17. The lack of affinity between seamount communities across only 1,000 kilometres of
ocean is remarkable, and indicates that seamount species may be restricted in their
distribution to single clusters or chains of seamounts or even to single seamounts. This
means that human impacts on seamounts resulting from fishing or mining may result in
species extinction and a global reduction in the diversity of the global seamount fauna.
There is, therefore, an urgent requirement to assess the distribution of biogenic structures
and associated communities on seamounts to identify which areas harbour significant
species diversity.11
2.
Hydrothermal vents
18. Hydrothermal vents are rare features, surrounded by small, distinctive ecosystems
supported by a chemosynthetic source unknown elsewhere in the marine biosphere. They
occur at divergent plate boundaries (mid-ocean ridges) and convergent plates where backarc spreading centres occur. At mid-ocean ridges, interaction among the liquid magma
from the earth’s mantel, gases and water at extreme pressures create high-temperature
deep-sea vents rich in chemicals that feed bacteria at the base of unique food chains. An
investigation of the biogeographic value of chemosynthetic systems has revealed that
vents are like oases in the deep, supporting life and spreading species richness. The
biological processes occurring at hydrothermal vents are powered by chemical energy
rather than sunlight.12 In view of the peculiar circumstances in which life develops in
these ecosystems, hydrothermal vent organisms are a subject of interest from both a
scientific and a commercial point of view.
National Research Council, Effects of Trawling & Dredging on Seafloor Habitat. Committee on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing: Phase
1 - Effects of Bottom Trawling on Seafloor Habitats (Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 2002).
11 B. Richer de Forges, J. Koslow and G. Poore, “Diversity and endemism of benthic seamount fauna in the south-west Pacific”, Nature,
No. 405 (22 June 2000), pp. 944-947.
12 J. Fossá, P. Mortensen and D. Furevik, “The deep-water coral Lophelia pertusa in Norwegian waters: distribution and fishery
impacts”, Hydrobiologia, vol. 471 (2002), pp. 1-12; J. Roberts, “The occurrence of the coral Lophelia Pertusa and other conspicuous
epifauna around an oil platform in the North Sea”, Journal of the Society for Underwater Technology, vol. 25 (2002), pp. 83-91; J.
Gordon, “The Rockall Trough, north-east Atlantic: the cradle of deep-sea biological oceanography that is now being subjected to
unsustainable fishing activity”, Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science, vol. 31 (2003), pp. 57-83; M. Gianni, High Seas
Bottom Trawl Fisheries and their Impacts on the Biodiversity of Vulnerable Deep-Sea Ecosystems. Report prepared for International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Natural Recources Defense Counsel, World Wildlife Fund International and Conservation
International (2004).
10
11
A/64/…
19. The main characteristic of hydrothermal species is their tolerance to extreme
conditions and their very peculiar physiology. Organisms mostly belong to the domain
archaea, an evolutionary branch that is separate from those of bacteria and eukarya. The
biomass of benthic animals at these habitats is typically high and dominated by tubeworms
(Riftia pachyptila), clams (Calyptogena magnifica), mussels (Bathymodiolous
thermophilus) and a variety of gastropods, polychaete worms and shrimps.13
20. The diversity of species around hydrothermal vents is low, but levels of endemism in
these habitats are high (more than 90 per cent). Although different vents have similar taxa
at higher taxonomic levels (the genus and family), at the species level there are significant
differences between vents.14 This led to the establishment of biogeographic provinces
including the East Pacific, comprising the Galapagos Rift, the East Pacific Rise and the
Guaymas Basin; the North-East Pacific; the Western Pacific, where hydrothermal vents
have been found in a variety of back-arc basins, including the Lau Basin, the Manus
Basin, the Marianas Trough and the Fiji Basin and the Okinawa Trough; and the midAtlantic, where a number of vents have been discovered, and on the South-West Indian
Ridge, which is where the hottest and deepest vent sites ever discovered have been found,
as well as new cold seeps near New Zealand.
3.
Cold-water corals
21. Cold-water corals are formed by a few species of stony corals, including Lophelia
pertusa, Madrepora oculata, Solenosmilia variabilis, Goniocorella dumosa, Oculina
varicosa, Enallopsammia profunda and Enallopsammia rostrata. Discoveries of new coldwater coral reefs have continued over the past few years and have included the largest
Lophelia reef found to date, the Røst Reef off the Lofoten Islands, which lies at a depth of
300 to 400 metres and covers an area 40 kilometres long by 2 to 3 kilometres wide.
Sightings on the Western side of the Atlantic Ocean are sparse, but indicate that a similar
belt stretches from off the coast of Canada to Brazil. 15 Genetic analysis of Lophelia
pertusa from off the Brazilian coast indicates a large genetic distance from European
populations, which may suggest that the South-West Atlantic populations may not be cospecific to North-East Atlantic marine animals.16
http://www.marine-genomics-europe.org/ .
A. Rogers, “Molecular ecology and evolution of slope species”, in Ocean Margin Systems, G. Wefer, D. Billet, D. Hebbeln, B.
Jorgensen, M. Shuluter and T. Van Weering, editors (Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, 2003).
15 A. Klitgaard, “The fauna associated with outer shelf and upper slope sponges (Porifera, Demospongia) at the Faroe Islands, northeastern Atlantic”, Sarsia, vol. 80 (1995), pp. 1-22.
16http://www.icriforum.org/secretariat/palaugm/ITEM561_Hain.pdf
13
14
12
A/64/…
22. In the southern hemisphere, cold-water coral ecosystems have been found associated
with seamounts south of Tasmania, Australia, and around New Zealand. These coral
ecosystems, as with Lophelia pertusa reefs, are associated with highly diverse and
endemic communities of marine animals. The fracture zone in the South Pacific area has
not been explored to confirm the existence of cold-water coral reef ecosystems. Likewise,
the area off the coast of Chile has yet to be investigated for the presence of cold-water
coral ecosystems.17
23. Other types of coral can form distinct habitats with associated communities of marine
animals. In particular, large colonies of octo-corals or gorgonians can form dense forests
or gardens, as found in the North Pacific, along the Aleutian Island chain, in the Bering
Sea and in the Gulf of Alaska. These habitats are rich in rockfish (Sebastes spp), shrimp
and other crustaceans. They also host other suspension feeding attached animals, such as
crinoids, basket stars and sponges. Gorgonians and other corals form dense populations in
areas such as canyons and may have a highly diverse associated fauna. The New England
seamounts have recently been explored, primarily with regard to octocorals and fish.
However, detailed results of these activities have not yet been reported.18
24. There is an urgent need to identify areas with cold-water coral or other biogenic reef
communities. Deep-sea corals grow slowly and reefs take thousands of years to develop.
The diversity and levels of endemism of species associated with such biogenic reefs are
poorly understood and require urgent exploration. There is also little information on the
reproduction, recruitment and ability of many reef-forming deep-sea corals, gorgonians
and sponges to recover from human impacts. Most information is on Lophelia pertusa. In
situ observations and experimentation are required to address these issues. Images of these
structures can be obtained from ships using acoustic methods, but since vast areas of the
seabed are potential habitats for reef-forming organisms, seabed assessment using
autonomous underwater vehicles may be useful.
25. Although scientists generally agree that it is difficult at present to predict the impact of
human activities on deep-sea species, there is some evidence of the impact of trawling on
cold-water corals. It is recognized that gorgonian corals are extremely vulnerable to some
types of fishing, notably bottom trawling, while other kinds of cold-water corals, such as
some cup-corals, appear to have only average to low vulnerabilities.19
http://www.icriforum.org/secretariat/palaugm/ITEM561_Hain.pdf
18 http://research.usm.maine.edu/gulfofmaine-census/about-the-gulf/physical-characteristics/geology/new-england seamounts.
19 FAO Fisheries Report No. 829.
17
13
A/64/…
4.
Other vulnerable marine ecosystems
26. Other VMEs include carbonate mounds and sponge fields. Carbonate mounds are very
steep-sided mounds of a variety of shapes, which may be up to 350 metres high and 2
kilometres wide at their base, and may be found offshore in depths of 500 to 1,100 metres.
Notably, these occur in areas such as the Porcupine Seabight and Rockall Trough.20 The
features are typically composed of carbonate sands, muds and silts. The cold-water reefbuilding corals (Lophelia pertusa and Madrepora oculata), as well as echiuran worms, are
characteristic fauna of carbonate mounds.21
27. Sponge fields are a characteristic benthic component of many deep-sea assemblages all
over the world. The majority of samples have been taken from depths between 800 and
6,000 metres. Some 65 species have been described to date. 22 Due to their large size, slow
growth rates and weak cementation, most sponge species are very fragile and thus only
sampled using photographic methods. Despite their fragility, specimens may be quite
abundant on abyssal seabeds. Mass occurrences of large sponges may be found around the
Faroe Islands, East Greenland, around Iceland, in the Skagerrak off Norway and in the
Barents Sea. 23 The presence of large sponges adds a low three-dimensional structure to the
seabed, thus increasing habitat complexity and attracting a large number of other, smaller
species from many phylae. These associated fauna have been investigated in the Faroe
Islands, where it was found that sponges house about 250 species of invertebrates.24
28. It is believed that sponge fields may provide an important feeding habitat for various
fish species including young ocean perch (Sebastes spp.) and groundfish. The fauna
associated with sponge fields is reported to be at least twice as rich in species as the
surrounding gravel or soft bottoms.25
N. Kenyon, A. Akhmetzhanov, A. Wheeler, T. van Weering, H. de Haas and M. Ivanov, “Giant carbonate mounds in the southern
Rockall Trough”, Marine Geology, vol. 195 (2003), pp. 5-30.
21 Descriptions of Habitats on the Initial List of Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic
(OSPAR) Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats, Meeting of the OSPAR Biodiversity Committee, Bruges, Belgium, 1620 February 2004.
22 O. Tendal, “Synoptic checklist and bibliography of the Xenophyophorea (Protista), with a zoogeographical survey of the group”,
Galathea Report, vol. 17 (1996), pp. 79-101.
23 A. Klitgaard and O. Tendal, “Distribution and species composition of mass occurrences of largesized sponges in the north-east
Atlantic”, Progress in Oceanography, vol. 61 (2004), pp. 57-98.
24 A. Klitgaard, “The fauna associated with outer shelf and upper slope sponges (Porifera, Demospongia) at the Faroe Islands, northeastern Atlantic”, Sarsia, vol. 80 (1995), pp. 1-22.
25 A. Klitgaard, “The distribution and habitats in the North Atlantic of two gnathiid species (Crustacea, Isopoda) and their reproductive
biology in the Denmark Strait and North of Iceland”, Meddelelser om Grøland, Bioscience, vol. 47 (1997).
20
14
A/64/…
B.
Impacts of bottom fisheries on vulnerable marine ecosystems
29. Deep-sea habitats are particularly sensitive to anthropogenic disturbance due to the
longevity, slow growth, low reproductive rates and endemism of the individuals that
structure the habitat, their susceptibility to increased sedimentation, their fragility and
limited ability to recover from physical fragmentation. A large number of studies have
documented the effects of mobile fishing gear on benthic habitat, including the loss of
habitat complexity, shifts in community structure and changes in ecosystem processes.26
Changes in size structure, genetic composition, localized depletions and alteration of trophic
structures in ecosystems have also been shown.27 Previous reports of the Secretary-General
have also described the impacts of bottom fishing activities on VMEs (A/59/62/Add.1,
paras. 295-300, and A/61/154).
30. There is now sufficient information to predict the physical effects of the majority of
existing fishing practices. Impacts result from a combination of the damage done by each
gear deployment and the frequency of deployment. Any gear that has bottom contact has
the potential to damage vulnerable deep-sea habitats. The degree of impact depends on the
type of gear, the degree of contact with the seabed and the frequency of contact. Thus,
even bottom gear with a low potential for damage per deployment can potentially cause
significant impacts if used intensively.28
1.
Fishing gears and practices used in deep-sea fisheries
31. The fishing methods used in the deep-sea range from hooks and lines, pots and
enmeshing nets operated from small fishing vessels to trawl nets towed on and above the
seabed by trawlers.
32. Hook and line gear. The principle element of long-line gear is the mainline or groundline, which can extend up to 50 kilometres in length. Branching off the mainline at regular
intervals are leaders or snoods, and hooks. Anchors hold each end of the mainline in place,
and surface buoys attached via float lines to the anchors mark the location of the gear. All
bottom-set, long-line gear is considered fixed and passive because once deployed the gear
does not move, and the fish voluntarily takes the hook. The bottom long-line has a
relatively small footprint on the seabed. Anchors hold the ends of the mainline to the
seabed and the mainline lies across the seabed. The mainline can move around while the
26
27
ICES, Report of the Working Group on Biology and Assessment of Deep-Sea Fisheries Resources (2006).
ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 2006 63(9):1567-1572 ;doi:10.1016/j.icesjms.2006.03.028.
15
A/64/…
gear soaks and be dragged across the seabed in the process of hauling the gear. By-catch of
coral trees and other epibenthos, including hard and soft corals, are known to occur.
Vertical long-line gear is usually set from smaller vessels sometimes fishing in association
with Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs). The gear consists of multiple hooks and leaders
attached to a vertical line suspended from a buoy at the surface with a weight which is
used to hold the hooks near the bottom. The FADs are used to attract and concentrate the
fish and baited hooks capture the fish. The seabed footprint of this gear is minimal as only
the anchor touches the bottom, and, therefore, seabed impact is minimal.
33. Pots. Animals enter the pot gear seeking food, shelter, or both. A device allows the
animal to enter the gear but restricts escape. The holding area retains the catch until the
gear is retrieved. Bait is placed in a bag or cage within the pot to attract the target species.
Culling rings or escape vents are added to the exterior wall of the pot to allow for the
release of undersize sublegal or juvenile animals. Finfish and crustaceans are harvested
with pots in deep water.
34. The use of pots in deep water has been shown to negatively impact some seabed
habitat. While individual pots have a small footprint on the seabed, a large number of pots
has a larger footprint than a long-line, and can disturb the seabed by crushing animals or
scraping epi-fauna attached to the seabed from its anchored location. Additionally, when
several traps are attached together the mainline will encounter and entangle hard and soft
corals on the seabed. Pots that are lost on the seabed are known to ghost fish.
Biodegradable panels or other technical means are used in some fisheries to prevent ghost
fishing.29
35. Enmeshing gear. Enmeshing gear includes a group of fishing gear types which result in
the capture of animals by a wall of webbing in the water column or on the bottom. The
animals are captured by wedging or tangling. Shellfish and corals are easily entangled in
bottom set enmeshing gear. Large fish become entangled in the gear by the jaw and large
marine mammals become entangled by wrapping-up in the webbing. Anchored sink
gillnets are used to harvest demersal fish. Anchors are used at both ends of the net to hold
the gear in a fixed location. Individual nets vary in length from 100 to 200 metres, and in
depth from 2 to 10 metres. Multiple nets are attached together to form a string of nets, up
to 2000 metres in length. The impacts of gillnets and tangle nets on the seabed are a
function of the type of seabed and the target fishery resource. On soft substrates the effects
28
29
16
ICES Advice 2009, Book 9.
http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/fds08-05.pdf.
A/64/…
will be minimal, while on hard bottoms with attached, emergent fauna, the nets may tangle
with corals and other organisms and remove them from the seabed.30
36. Trawlnets. The bottom trawlnet is a funnel-shaped net, with a sweep which tends
bottom as the net is towed. The largest trawlers, ranging from 50 to 100 metres in length,
catch, process and freeze their products onboard, and are referred to as factory, catcher or
processor trawlers. Smaller wetfish or freezer trawlers also operate in deep-sea fisheries.
Bottom trawls have the potential to have a substantial impact on the seabed depending on
the weight of the gear, including doors and footropes. The size of the area impacted is a
function of the width of the trawl and the distance it is towed. When used on sandy seabed
the impacts are minimal; the otter boards scar the seabed, and the trawl sweep only
smooths the seabed removing small bedforms that are regenerated in a relatively short
period of time. However, when used on hard, gravel, cobble or boulder seabeds, trawls
roll-over the larger rocks and scrape off attached, emergent epibenthic organisms,
including sponges and corals. Numerous studies have documented the negative impacts of
trawling on the hard seabed on continental shelves.31
37. Off-bottom or mid-water trawl nets are also used in deep-sea fisheries. The nets must
be aimed or directed at specific concentrations of fish. Therefore, fishers must be able to
identify the location of fish both laterally and vertically, and to direct the pelagic trawl to
that position. Sonars are used to locate both fish and the fishing gear. When properly used,
mid-water trawls have no impact on the seabed as the gear is not intended to contact the
seabed. However, at times these gears do accidentally contact the seabed and when this
occurs the impacts on the seabed habitat are similar to the impacts of a bottom trawl.
2.
Impacts of bottom fishing gears on vulnerable marine ecosystems and
associated biodiversity
38. Adverse impacts caused by fishing gears or other anthropogenic disturbances are
impacts on populations, communities, or habitats that are more than minimal and not
temporary in nature. If the consequences of an impact spread more widely in space or
through ecosystem interactions and are not temporary, the impact is adverse even if the
ecosystem feature directly impacted shows rapid recovery. Taking into account principle
15 of the 1992 Declaration of the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (the “Rio Declaration”), adverse impacts become significant when the harm
30
FAO Fisheries Report No. 829.
471: 43–55, 2002. L. Watling & M. Risk (eds), Biology of Cold Water Corals.
31Hydrobiologia
17
A/64/…
is serious or irreversible. Impacts that are likely to take several generations or decades to
reverse, whichever is shorter, are considered irreversible. Intentional or accidental impacts
that are likely to reduce the productivity of any population impacted by the fishery, or the
productivity, species richness, or resilience of an impacted community or ecosystem, or
the structural complexity of a habitat, are considered serious.32
39. Significant adverse impacts are those that compromise ecosystem integrity (i.e.
ecosystem structure or function) in a manner that: (i) impairs the ability of affected
populations to replace themselves; (ii) degrades the long-term natural productivity of
habitats; or (iii) causes, on more than a temporary basis, significant loss of species
richness, habitat or community types. Impacts should be evaluated individually, in
combination and cumulatively. When determining the scale and significance of an impact,
the following six factors should be considered: (i) the intensity or severity of the impact at
the specific site affected; (ii) the spatial extent of the impact relative to the availability of
the habitat type affected; (iii) the sensitivity/vulnerability of the ecosystem to the impact;
(iv) the ability of an ecosystem to recover from harm, and the rate of such recovery; (v)
the extent to which ecosystem functions may be altered by the impact; and (vi) the timing
and duration of the impact relative to the period in which a species needs the habitat
during one or more of its life history stages.33
40. Temporary impacts are those that are limited in duration and that allow the particular
ecosystem to recover over an acceptable time frame. Such time frames should be decided
on a case-by-case basis and should be in the order of 5 to 20 years, taking into account the
specific features of the populations and ecosystems. In determining whether an impact is
temporary, both the duration and the frequency at which an impact is repeated should be
considered. If the interval between the expected disturbances of a habitat is shorter than
the recovery time, the impact should be considered more than temporary. In circumstances
of limited information, States and RFMO/As should apply the precautionary approach in
their determinations regarding the nature and duration of impacts.34
41. Immediate impacts. The direct effects of bottom fisheries on VMEs and associated
biodiversity are as follows: (i) mortality of target and non-target species as well as the
Alex D Rogers, Malcolm R Clark, Jason M Hall-Spencer, Kristina M Gjerde (2008). The Science behind the Guidelines: A Scientific
Guide to the FAO Draft International Guidelines (December 2007) For the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries in the High Seas and
Examples of How the Guidelines May Be Practically Implemented. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN),
Switzerland, 2008.
33 FAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report
No. 881.
34 FAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report
No. 881; FAO, the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries: FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, No. 4, Supp. 2 (Rome,
2003).
32
18
A/64/…
killing of or injury to benthic species, making them vulnerable to scavengers or predators;
(ii) increased food availability of discarded fish, fish offal and dead benthic organisms for
predators; and (iii) loss of habitat as fishing gear causes destruction or disturbance of the
seafloor. 35
42. Long-term impacts. The indirect effects of fishing, including bottom fishing activities,
may be chararacterized as follows: (i) fishing affects predator-prey relationships, which
can lead to shifts in community structures that do not revert to the original condition upon
the cessation of fishing pressure; (ii) fishing can alter the population size and body size
composition of species by affecting populations of large slow-growing and late-maturing
species, leading to shifts in the relative abundance of species with different life history
characteristics; (iii) fishing can affect populations of non-target species (e.g. cetaceans,
birds, reptiles and elasmobranch fish) as a result of by-catches; (iv) fishing gear lost or
voluntarily discarded at sea may apparently continue to catch fish for some time (ghost
fishing), affecting both target and non-target stocks; (v) fishing can reduce habitat
complexity and perturb seabed (benthic) communities; and (vi) fishing can lead to genetic
selection for different body and reproductive traits and can extirpate distinct local
stocks.36
43. Additional concerns include the following: (i) the sensitivity and vulnerability of some
species, communities and habitats to direct and indirect impacts of fishing (easily
perturbed); (ii) the extreme longevity (100s to 1,000s of years) of individuals of some
types of organisms (e.g. octocorals) or the long time over which some habitats develop, up
to 8,000 years for cold-water coral reefs (slow recovery); (iii) the low resilience of
species, communities and habitats as a result of low productivity, great longevity,
unpredictable and usually low recruitment, and low growth rates (unpredictable recovery);
(iv) high risk of loss of biodiversity, including extinctions, due to the endemism of a high
proportion of species encountered within some deep-sea ecosystems; (v) the distribution of
some vulnerable seafloor communities as spatially discrete units often within a small area
relative to the overall area of the seabed (small perturbations may have significant
consequences); and (vi) the connectivity between populations within geographic regions
that may be critical to the long-term sustainability of biodiversity (fragmentation and risk
of loss of source populations).
35http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2008/Special%20Requests/NEAFC%20request%20on%20identification%20of%2
36
0vulnerable%20marine%20ecosystems.pdf.
National Research Council, Effects of Trawling & Dredging on Seafloor Habitat. Committee on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Phase 1
— Effects of Bottom Trawling on Seafloor Habitats (Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 2002).
19
A/64/…
III.
Actions taken by States and regional fisheries management organizations and
arrangements to adopt and implement measures to address the impacts of
bottom fisheries on vulnerable marine ecosystems
44. In resolution 61/105, the General Assembly called upon States to take action
immediately, individually and through RFMO/As, and consistent with the precautionary
approach and ecosystem approaches, to sustainably manage fish stocks and protect VMEs.
RFMO/As with the competence to regulate bottom fisheries were called upon to adopt and
implement measures, in accordance with the precautionary approach, ecosystem
approaches and international law, as a matter of priority, but not later than 31
December 2008, to regulate bottom fishing activities and protect VMEs. States
participating in negotiations for the establishment of a RFMO/A competent to regulate
bottom fisheries were called upon to expedite those negotiations and to adopt and
implement interim measures, by no later than 31 December 2007, consistent with
paragraph 83 of the resolution. Flag States were similarly called upon to either adopt and
implement measures in accordance with paragraph 83, or cease to authorize fishing vessels
flying their flag to conduct bottom fisheries in areas beyond national jurisdiction where
there was no RFMO/A with the competence to regulate such fisheries or interim measures
in accordance with paragraph 85, until such measures were taken in accordance with
paragraphs 83 or 85 of the resolution.
45. In response, a wide range of measures have been adopted and implemented by the
international community to address the impacts of bottom fishing on VMEs, both in areas
within and in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Such measures include: developing tools
for identifying VMEs, assessing the impacts of bottom fishing on such ecosystems,
prohibiting certain fishing practices in areas with VMEs, restricting gear types and use,
collecting data and conducting research, and relying on more comprehensive and rigorous
use of scientific advice, establishing marine protected areas (MPAs), and closing areas to
fishing.
46. In particular, many RFMO/As have adopted measures to ensure sustainable fisheries
and prevent destructive fishing practices by implementing precautionary and ecosystem
approaches, preventing habitat degradation, expanding research programmes, and
improving monitoring and enforcement. Regional fisheries organizations with the
competence to regulate bottom fisheries have adopted a framework for regulating the
impacts of bottom fishing activities on VMEs. In addition, standards and criteria have
been adopted, or are being developed, for identifying VMEs and the impacts of bottom
fishing on those ecosystems. Some RFMO/As have recommended the temporary
20
A/64/…
prohibition of bottom trawling and bottom gillnet fishing until impact assessments have
been conducted.
47. In areas under national jurisdiction, several States have adopted and implemented
conservation and management measures aimed at ensuring the long-term sustainability of
fish stocks and protecting VMEs. Some States have prohibited trawling and dredging
around VMEs and are in the process of undertaking extensive efforts to protect fishery
habitat areas, in particular, through the establishment of MPAs. Other States have
implemented conservation and management measures, on the basis of the precautionary
approach and ecosystem approaches to fisheries management, to prevent significant
adverse impacts of deep sea fisheries on VMEs and associated marine biodiversity.
48. On the high seas, States participating in negotiations to establish new regional fisheries
management organizations or arrangements have adopted interim measures to address the
impacts of bottom fishing activities on VMEs. Several States have taken action in respect
of fishing vessels flying their flag to adopt laws and regulations implementing resolution
61/105 as well as measures ensuring compliance with the conservation and management
measures of competent RFMO/As giving effect to the relevant provisions of the
resolution.
A.
Actions taken by regional fisheries management organizations and
arrangements with competence to regulate bottom fisheries
49. In addition to the regional fisheries organizations with the competence to regulate
bottom fisheries (i.e. Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources (CCAMLR), General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM),
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), North East Atlantic Fisheries
Commission (NEAFC), and South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO)), a
number of other RFMO/As have taken measures to sustainably manage fish stocks and
protect VMEs from destructive fishing practices.
50. The present section contains information on conservation and management measures
adopted by RFMO/As to sustainably manage fish stocks and protect VMEs from
destructive fishing practices, including measures to give effect to paragraph 83 of General
Assembly resolution 61/105. The section is based on submissions received from:
CCAMLR, the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT), the
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), the Interim Secretariat of
Management of High Seas Bottom Fisheries in the North Western Pacific Ocean (NWPO),
21
A/64/…
NEAFC, NAFO, the Pacific Island Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), the North Atlantic
Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO), SEAFO, the Interim Secretariat of the
South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO), and the
Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC).
1.
Overview of actions taken by RFMO/As
51. CCAMLR reported that it had adopted significant measures over the past two years to
meet the 31 December 2008 deadline and implement the measures for the management of
bottom fisheries called for in paragraphs 81 and 83 of resolution 61/105. More
specifically, CCAMLR agreed to limit the existing footprint of bottom fishing activity in
its Regulatory Area and to implement mandatory reporting of VME indicator organisms by
all fishing vessels. CCAMLR also agreed on a procedure to close areas to fishing when
VME indicator organisms in an area exceeded a specific threshold level.37
52. Furthermore, CCAMLR members and the CCAMLR Scientific Committee were
continuing their work on VMEs to reduce uncertainty about the potential impacts of
fishing on these ecosystems and to identify and locate VMEs in the CCAMLR Convention
Area. In this respect, CCAMLR had endorsed an approach that focused on developing a
risk assessment framework to assess the impacts of bottom long-lines on VMEs due to the
lack of empirical evidence of the impacts of such fishing gear on VMEs and the
difficulties in getting such information.
53. NAFO reported that resolution 61/105 was a watershed moment in the history of high
seas fisheries, as it provided a clear outline for the identification and protection of VMEs.
In particular, resolution 61/105 provided a way forward by identifying the essential
elements of a framework that was sufficiently flexible to allow existing RFMO/As to
integrate the new concepts in their operations, rather than prescribing the specifics of
implementation. While the commitments generally reflected a collective desire to protect
features such as corals and sponges, the resolution represented a regime shift for fisheries
management.
54. In April 2008, NAFO held an extraordinary meeting during which it adopted comprehensive
measures to comply with the deadline and fulfill the recommendations in resolution 61/105.
According to these new provisions, in 2009 Contracting Parties in NAFO were required to assess
any proposed bottom fishing activity for anticipated impacts on VMEs. Regarding the deadline
of 31 December 2008 contained in the resolution, NAFO indicated that the date was not
37
22
CCAMLR Conservation Measure 22-05; Conservation Measure 22-0; and Conservation Measure 22-07.
A/64/…
necessarily synchronized with relevant international meetings, such as FAO Technical
Consultations and RFMO/A scheduled activities. It noted that while most States
recognized the importance and relevance of having a collective date towards which to
direct efforts, they also recognized, however, that complying with a deadline could not be
the sole metric of success. NAFO had taken steps in an ongoing process that would
continue during 2009, and beyond the 2009 review by the General Assembly.
55. NEAFC reported that the need to conserve vulnerable deep-sea habitats and species
had been high on its agenda in recent years. It noted that the current science surrounding
temperate area closures was uncertain, and it had thus moved forward in a precautionary
and adaptive manner to close areas to bottom fisheries in order to protect VMEs, and to
formalize procedures for area management. In 2006, NEAFC prohibited fisheries with
gillnets, entangling nets and trammel nets in depths below 200 metres and introduced
measures to remove and dispose of unmarked or illegal fixed gear and retrieve lost gear to
minimize ghost fishing. It had previously agreed to reduce effort in all deep-water bottom
fisheries by 35 per cent. The NEAFC scheme of control and enforcement had provided the
tools to monitor and control areas where bottom fishing was prohibited, and it made
mandatory the provision of real time information on movements of fishing vessels to
fisheries monitoring centres.
56. NEAFC had also closed a number of areas to bottom fisheries where VMEs were
known or likely to occur. In 2002, NEAFC closed an area in the Rockall Area to protect
juvenile fish, and in 2004 it adopted an interim ban on bottom fishing in a large area on
the Reykjanes Ridge (the northern part of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge) and four seamounts
adjacent to the Ridge.
57. In 2008, NEAFC adopted comprehensive measures, including specific operational
procedures, on bottom fishing activities in its Regulatory Area. 38 Clear procedures and
rules were now in place on identifying existing bottom fishing areas, conducting
exploratory fishing in new bottom fishing areas, assessing bottom fishing activities,
dealing with encounters with VMEs, and collecting data using new protocols for observers
onboard fishing vessels to increase knowledge of vulnerable habitats in deep waters.
NEAFC noted that its Contracting Parties recognized the importance of dialogue and
collaboration with responsible fisheries operators and the value of industry information
and experience in developing responsible fishing techniques and adapting gear, as well as
implementing methods to avoid or mitigate significant adverse impacts on VMEs.
38
See Recommendation XVI (2008) and Recommentation XIII (2009).
23
A/64/…
58. NEAFC considered that it had taken major initiatives in order to address its
responsibilities for implementing resolution 61/105. As this was a dynamic process,
NEAFC had committed itself to keeping under continuous review the measures currently
in place, and to adjust those measures in light of available scientific information and
advice.
59. SEAFO reported that its management regime was designed to be science-based, to take
into consideration an ecosystem approach and to apply the precautionary approach in the
absence of reliable information. In 2008, SEAFO adopted interim comprehensive
conservation and management measures relating to bottom fishing activities in all existing
and new bottom fishing areas outside SEAFO closed areas in order to protect VMEs from
significant adverse impacts and to meet the deadline in resolution 61/105.39 The measures
dealt with the identification of existing bottom fishing areas, exploratory fishing in new
bottom fishing areas, assessment of bottom fishing activities, and encounters with VMEs.
SEAFO intended to review the measures in 2010 and to examine, on a biannual basis
thereafter, the effectiveness of the provisions in protecting VMEs from significant adverse
impacts.
60. SPC had facilitated discussions on the control of deep-sea bottom trawling within its
membership and had provided technical advice to Pacific Island countries and territories.
There was currently no known deep-sea bottom trawling activity in the Exclusive
Economic Zones (EEZ’s) of any Pacific Island country or territory. However, SPC had
broadly supported the setting up of the SPRFMO and it had provided technical advice to
member countries participating in the establishment of the SPRFMO. Furthermore, SPC
had instigated a research project investigating seamount ecology in the region, focusing on
the importance of seamounts in fisheries for highly migratory species and it had advised
its members on the development and management of sustainable deep-sea fisheries using
non-destructive fishing gear.
61. In 2005, GFCM banned bottom trawling at depths beyond 1000 metres. Sea beds
below 1000 metres had not yet been explored by Mediterranean fleets. Thus, the ban was a
precautionary measure to protect the still-intact and poorly understood deep-sea
ecosystems. Over half the area of the Mediterranean has now been protected from harmful
impacts of bottom trawling.40 In order to protect deep sea sensitive habitats, GCFM also
See Conservation Measures 06/06 on the Management of Vulnerable Deep Water Habitats and Ecosystems in the SEAFO Convention
Area.
40 See recommendation GFCM/2005/1 at www.gfcm.org/gfcm.
39
24
A/64/…
established three fisheries restricted areas in which fishing with towed dredges and bottom
trawl nets was prohibited.41
62. GFCM also adopted measures in 2007 and 2009 to improve the gear selectivity of
demersal trawl fisheries.42 In 2009, GFCM adopted a recommendation on the
establishment of a fisheries restricted area in the Gulf of Lions to protect spawning
aggregations and deep sea sensitive habitats. 43 Pursuant to the recommendation, the
fishing effort for demersal stocks of vessels using towed nets, bottom and mid-water
longlines, and bottom-set nets should not exceed the level of fishing effort applied in 2008
in the fisheries restricted area.
63. FFA members that were party to the Nauru Agreement44 concluded in 2008 the Third
Implementing Arrangement to the Nauru Agreement, which contained a range of measures
applicable to licensed foreign fishing vessels within and beyond national jurisdiction,
including a prohibition on fishing in two high seas enclaves, as a condition of fishing
access to national waters. The measures were developed, in part, in response to the failure
of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) to adopt a measure for
the conservation and management of vulnerable bigeye and yellowfin tuna stocks at its
fourth session in 2007. The initiative was affirmed at the fifth session of the WCPFC in
December 2008, which supported the prohibition from 1 January 2010, unless otherwise
decided. WCPFC would also consider the closure of other high seas enclaves in the Pacific
Islands region at its sixth session in December 2009. The measure would be binding on all
WCPFC members and cooperating non-members and was expected to have a positive and
indirect impact on the sustainable management of fish stocks and the protection of VMEs.
64. FFA observed that there was an urgent need to survey and identify VMEs that existed
in the Pacific Islands region, particularly within the high seas enclaves wholly surrounded
by the EEZs of its members. It encouraged further assistance for marine scientific research
(MSR) that included the participation of adjacent coastal State representatives. FFA was of
the view that any measures taken for the sustainable use of fish stocks and protection of
VMEs should not result in the transfer of a disproportionate burden of conservation action
onto developing States.
Recommendation GFCM/2006/3.
Resolution GFCM/31/2007/3, recommendation GFCM 31/2007/1, and recommendation GFCM/33/2009/2.
43 Recommendation GFCM/33/2009/1.
44 The Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon
Islands and Tuvalu.
41
42
25
A/64/…
65. NASCO and CCSBT reported that they did not have the mandate to manage bottom
fishing within their respective Convention Areas and that, consequently, they had not
taken action in accordance with the provisions in resolution 61/105. NASCO managed
fisheries for salmon in the North Atlantic, and the fisheries were, in most areas, prohibited
beyond 12 nautical miles. The nature of the salmon fishing gear used was not considered
to have adverse impacts on the environments in which it was deployed. IATTC likewise
reported that paragraphs 83 to 90 of resolution 61/105 were not relevant to its work, as it
had no responsibilities with respect to deep sea fisheries in the high seas or bottom
fisheries on VMEs.
2.
Measures taken by competent RFMO/As to implement paragraphs 83 (a) to (d)
of resolution 61/105
(a)
Assessment of significant adverse impacts of bottom fishing activities on VMEs
66. Paragraph 83(a) of General Assembly resolution 61/105 called upon RFMO/As with
the competence to regulate bottom fisheries to assess, on the basis of the best available
scientific information, whether individual bottom fishing activities would have significant
adverse impacts on VMEs, and to ensure that activities that would have significant adverse
impacts on these ecosystems were managed to prevent such impacts, or not authorized to
proceed. RFMO/As with the competence to regulate bottom fisheries have begun to take
action to assess the impacts of fishing activities on marine habitats, including by
identifying sensitive habitats within their respective convention areas, and to prevent
significant adverse impacts of bottom fisheries by managing bottom fishing activities, or
not authorizing such activities to proceed.
67. CCAMLR adopted measures that required all individual bottom fishing activities
commencing 1 December 2008 and thereafter to be assessed by its Scientific Committee.
The assessments were to be based on the best available scientific information to determine
if the activities, taking into account the history of bottom fishing in the areas, would
contribute to having significant adverse impacts on VMEs, and to ensure that the activities
were managed to prevent such impacts, or were not authorised to proceed.
68. Contracting Parties in CCAMLR were required to submit information and a
preliminary assessment with the best available data of the known and anticipated impacts
of their bottom fishing activities on VMEs, including on benthos and benthic
26
A/64/…
communities. 45 The information was to include the mitigation measures proposed by the
Contracting Party to prevent such impacts. The CCAMLR Scientific Committee would
assess the information before providing advice on whether the proposed bottom fishing
activity would contribute to having significant adverse impacts on VMEs and, if so,
whether the proposed or additional mitigation measures would prevent these impacts.
CCAMLR would subsequently take into account the advice and recommendations
provided by the Scientific Committee concerning bottom fishing activities before adopting
conservation measures to prevent significant adverse impacts on VMEs.
69. In addition, CCAMLR Contracting Parties were required to adopt measures with
respect to their vessels that participated in bottom fisheries in order to monitor and control
such activities, including requiring each vessel to carry at least one CCAMLR-designated
scientific observer to collect data. Vessels that failed to submit required data with respect
to conservation measures relevant to a bottom fishery were to be prohibited from
continuing their participation in the fishery.
70. NAFO adopted a comprehensive programme to assess the impacts of bottom fishing
activities on marine habitats and prevent significant adverse impacts on VMEs, including
the closure of seamounts and the adoption of an interim exploratory fishery protocol for
new fishing areas, and interim encounter provisions for VMEs in both fished and unfished
areas of its Regulatory Area.46 NAFO undertook a preliminary assessment of existing
fisheries based on a comparison of the historic footprint and the map of possible VMEs
and further assessment was expected to be undertaken when additional scientific
information became available.
71. NAFO reported that its conservation and enforcement measures required its Scientific
Council to identify VMEs and its Fisheries Commission to establish conservation and
management measures to prevent significant adverse impacts to VMEs from individual
fishing activities. In 2008, the Scientific Council identified three bottom gear types that
could adversely affect sensitive bottom habitat (i.e. bottom trawls, gillnets and long lines).
Bottom fishing activities in new and existing fishing areas needed to be proposed in
advance and could only proceed after a scientific assessment had determined any known
and anticipated impacts on VMEs. The Scientific Council would provide advice on
whether a proposed bottom fishing activity would have significant adverse impacts on
VMEs and, if so, whether mitigation measures would prevent such impacts. The Fisheries
Commission would adopt conservation and management measures that were deemed
45
46
See CCAMLR Conservation Measure 22-06 (2008), Bottom fishing in the Convention Area, Annex 22-06/A.
http://www.nafo.int/publications/meetproc/2009/fc/fcwgsep08/annex4-6.html .
27
A/64/…
adequate to prevent significant adverse impacts on VMEs, which may include the
prohibition or restriction of certain bottom fishing activities or gear types and other
measures.
72. In 2008, NEAFC adopted comprehensive measures on bottom fishing activities in the
NEAFC Regulatory Area, including measures on how to assess bottom fishing activities.47
The procedures for assessment required each Contracting Party to assess impacts for any
proposed bottom fishing in 2009. The conclusion of a preliminary assessment was that
current bottom fisheries practices in the Regulatory Area did not have significant adverse
impacts on VMEs. Since scientific information was not always available, assessment of
the risk of significant adverse impacts of bottom fishing activities would be an ongoing
process, and NEAFC would continue its assessments in 2009 and beyond as information
and experience grew.
73. In 2008, SEAFO adopted interim comprehensive conservation and management
measures relating to bottom fishing activities in all existing and new bottom fishing areas
outside SEAFO closed areas, including measures on assessing bottom fishing activities, in
order to protect VMEs from significant adverse impacts in response to resolution
61/105.48 The SEAFO Scientific Committee was tasked to identify VMEs in the
Convention Area and map sites where they were known to occur or likely to occur, and
provide such data and information to the SEAFO Secretariat for circulation to all
Contracting Parties. Proposed bottom fishing activities were subject to assessment by the
Scientific Committee to determine if such activities, on the basis of the best available
scientific information and taking into account the history of bottom fishing in the areas
proposed, would have significant adverse impacts on VMEs.
(b)
Identification of VMEs and determination of significant adverse impacts
74. In paragraph 83(b) of General Assembly resolution 61/105, RFMO/As with the
competence to regulate bottom fisheries were called upon to identify VMEs and determine
whether bottom fishing activities would cause significant adverse impacts to such
ecosystems and the long-term sustainability of deep sea fish stocks, inter alia, by
improving scientific research and data collection and sharing, and through new and
exploratory fisheries.
47
48
28
See Recommendation XVI (2008).
See Conservation Measures 06/06 on the Management of Vulnerable Deep Water Habitats and Ecosystems in the SEAFO Convention
Area.
A/64/…
75. Pursuant to that provision, RFMO/As with the competence to regulate bottom fisheries
have adopted measures to identify VMEs and determine whether bottom fishing activities
would cause significant adverse impacts on such ecosystems, including through scientific
research and data collection and sharing, and new and exploratory fisheries. RFMO/As
indicated that data collection and research programmes were in progress, in particular,
with a view to identifying VMEs and to better understanding the impact of fishing on
VMEs.
76. In this regard, CCAMLR, NAFO and NEAFC conducted extensive research
programmes. Research by CCAMLR and NAFO was generally carried out by members
through observer programmes and fishery surveys (i.e. acoustic and net surveys) and joint
research programmes to collect data on target species; fisheries catch and effort data; and
biological, ecological and environmental data. NEAFC has an agreement with
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) for the provision of scientific
advice, and with the Commission of the Convention for the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) which has a mandate to protect and
conserve the marine environment in the North-East Atlantic.
77. CCAMLR was advised by its Scientific Committee, based on the best available
scientific information, on where VMEs were known to occur or were likely to occur, and
on potential mitigation measures. Contracting Parties were required to provide the
Scientific Committee with all relevant information to assist in this work. The CCAMLR
Secretariat maintained an inventory including digital maps of all known VMEs in the
Convention Area for circulation to all Contracting Parties and other relevant bodies.
Information on the location and the type of any VME encountered in the course of
scientific bottom fishing research activities was reported to the Secretariat. 49
78. In 2008, the NAFO Scientific Council produced a map of “candidate vulnerable
ecosystems”, as well as lists of vulnerable marine species in the NAFO Regulatory Area.50
More detailed information on the location of vulnerable corals and sponges would be
available later in 2009. In that regard, a joint research effort by several NAFO Contracting
Parties and coordinated by the European Union and Spain, was under way to provide
additional data on habitats and ecosystems of the international fishing grounds on the
Grand Banks and Flemish Cap. Research efforts to survey benthic habitats would be
undertaken in 2009 and 2010 that were expected to delineate the location of corals and
sponges in the Regulatory Area with much greater precision than had been possible to
49
50
See CCAMLR Conservation Measure 22-06 (2008), Bottom fishing in the Convention Area.
See NAFO Scientific Council Reports 2008, page 35, VII.1.i.vi Protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems.
29
A/64/…
date. NAFO also planned to amend its conservation and enforcement measures to provide
for the collection of biological data on seamounts in its Convention Area.
79. NAFO was in the process of finalizing its assessment of its “bottom fishing footprint.”
In the meantime, all areas below 2,000 metres had been defined as “new fishing areas” in
which only exploratory fisheries would be permitted. In that regard, the NAFO
conservation and enforcement measures,51 contained provisions for exploratory fisheries
applicable to “new fishing areas”, which were defined as the areas outside the bottom
fishing footprint. The regulations foresaw pre-authorization of such exploratory fisheries
based on scientific assessment as well as provisions for the encounter of VMEs.
80. NEAFC reported that its Permanent Committee on Management and Science
(PECMAS) had adopted procedures to consider proposals for area closures based on
scientific advice from ICES. In 2006, NEAFC established procedures for reporting
scientific information on deep-sea fisheries to ICES and had a standing request with ICES
to provide more detailed advice on vulnerable habitats and deep-sea fisheries as more
information became available.
81. In 2008, NEAFC adopted comprehensive measures on bottom fishing activities in its
Regulatory Area, including procedures and rules for identifying existing bottom fishing
areas and for conducting exploratory fishing in new bottom fishing areas.52 It also adopted
protocols for observers onboard fishing vessels to increase knowledge of vulnerable
habitats in deep waters.
82. In 2008, SEAFO adopted interim conservation and management measures relating to
bottom fishing activities outside SEAFO closed areas, including measures on identifying
existing bottom fishing areas and conducting exploratory fisheries in new bottom fishing
areas.53 Exploratory fishing was not allowed in existing closed areas in SEAFO. In this
regard, SEAFO had identified the location of seamounts in the SEAFO area by
topographical study and had adopted conservation and management measures for VMEs as
a precautionary measure, based on available scientific information. The conservation
measures implemented would be reviewed in 2010 on advice from the Scientific
Committee of SEAFO. All bottom fishing activities in new areas, or with bottom gear not
previously used in the area, were otherwise considered to be exploratory fisheries and
subject to an interim protocol, which included a harvest plan and a mitigation plan to
prevent significant adverse impact on VMEs.
See NAFO Conservation and Management Measures, Articles 3bis, 4bis, 5bis and Annex XXV.
See Recommendation XVI (2008) and Recommentation XIII (2009).
53 See Conservation Measures 06/06 on the Management of Vulnerable Deep Water Habitats and Ecosystems in the SEAFO Convention
Area.
51
52
30
A/64/…
83. SEAFO also reported that it had recognized the need to enhance knowledge and
understanding of the ecosystem and biodiversity within the Convention Area, in particular,
along the Walvis Ridge and in SEAFO closed areas. In that regard, SEAFO supported the
Mar-Eco project, which included the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the adjacent waters from the
Azores to Iceland. Research expeditions would survey much of the area using acoustic
studies and mid-water trawling. Three sub-areas had been selected for more intensive
sampling and observation by traditional and novel methods and technologies.54
84. In this context, SEAFO had adopted an interim VME data collection programme and it
would convene a special Workshop in 2009 to clarify knowledge on bottom fishing and
VMEs. The Workshop would elucidate on bottom fishing and VMEs, taking into account
the SEAFO conservation measure, and also provide a forum to facilitate the further
development of the South-Atlantic Mar-Eco research plans concerning the mapping of
VMEs. SEAFO had approved the hiring of a consultant to develop a simple pictorial
identification key for benthos including corals and sponges and to work with scientific
institutes in the region to develop local expertise in this field.
(c)
Measures applicable to areas with VMEs
85. In paragraph 83(c) of General Assembly resolution 61/105, RFMO/As with the
competence to regulate bottom fisheries were called upon to close areas to bottom fishing
where VMEs were known to occur or were likely to occur, based on the best available
scientific information, and ensure that such activities did not proceed unless conservation
and management measures had been established to prevent significant adverse impacts on
VMEs. Pursuant to resolution 61/105, RFMO/As with the competence to regulate bottom
fisheries have adopted measures to close areas to bottom fishing to prevent significant
adverse impacts, pending the adoption of conservation and management measures.
86. Specific measures were adopted by CCAMLR to limit the existing footprint of bottom
fishing activity in its Regulatory Area. In 2008, CCAMLR restricted the use of bottom
trawling gear in the high seas areas of its Convention Area to areas in which it had
conservation measures in force for bottom trawling gear. 55 Regarding other areas of its
Convention Area, CCAMLR had limited, until 30 November 2008, all bottom fishing
activities to those areas for which bottom fishing activities had been approved by the
The Mid-Atlantic Ridge Ecosystem (MAR-ECO) Project is one of 14 field programmes that are part of the Census of Marine Life, a
10-year global study of the abundance, distribution and diversity of marine life in the world’s oceans. See www.mar-eco.no.
55 See CCAMLR Conservation Measure 22-05 (2008), Restrictions on the use of bottom trawling gear in high-seas areas of the
Convention Area. The conservation measure does not apply to the use of bottom trawling gear in conducting scientific research in the
54
31
A/64/…
Commission in the 2006-2007 fishing season. Thereafter, all individual bottom fishing
activities were required to be assessed by the Scientific Committee. 56
87. NAFO reported that since 2006, as a precautionary measure, it had closed to bottom
fishing all the known seamounts in its Regulatory Area, as well as a large coral area on the
south end of the Grand Banks.57 In addition, NAFO had adopted provisions for temporary
closures of locations in new fishing areas where evidence of VMEs had been encountered,
until a scientific assessment had been conducted that allowed for the determination of
adequate, more permanent, measures.58
88. NEAFC amended its Convention and the London Declaration in 2006 to create the
formal basis for taking action to close areas to protect VMEs. As noted above, the NEAFC
Permanent Committee on Management and Science had also adopted procedures to
consider proposals for area closures, based on the scientific evaluation of proposals by
ICES. In 2007, NEAFC closed five areas in the Rockall - Hatton Bank area to bottom
fishing to protect deep-water corals, and, in April 2009, five areas on the Mid-Atlantic
Ridge in the North-East Atlantic high seas to bottom fisheries in order to protect VMEs
from significant adverse impacts, on the advice of ICES. Consequently, fishing activities
by vessels flying the flags of NEAFC Contracting Parties or cooperating non-Contracting
Parties, with fishing gear likely to contact the seafloor during the normal course of fishing
operations were prohibited within these areas.59 Most of the remaining part of the NEAFC
Regulatory Area was subject to the measures regulating bottom fishing adopted in 2008.
89. SEAFO reported that, in 2006, it had adopted conservation measures on the
management of vulnerable deep water habitats and ecosystems and closed ten areas,
including seamounts, to all types of fishing from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2010,
subject to the possible provision of small scale and restricted exploratory fisheries.60 The
measures would be reviewed in 2010 and a decision would be taken on future
CCAMLR Convention Area.
See CCAMLR Conservation Measure 22-06 (2008), Bottom fishing in the Convention Area.
57 See NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures, Articles 15 and 16.
58 See NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures, Articles 3bis, 4bis, 5bis and Annex XXV.
59 The combined size of the closed areas, which include all five areas that were temporarily closed in 2004, is estimated at 333,000
square kilometres, covering a large portion of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, an area larger than the United Kingdom and the Republic of
Ireland combined. The measure would be in force until 31 December 2015, but it will be reviewed before that time with a view to
extending the period that the recommendation is in force, barring any conclusion that the continued application of the measure or parts
of the measure was not required. If scientific research demonstrates that there are sub-areas where no vulnerable marine ecosystems
are found within the areas referred to in the measure, the measure will be amended in order to exclude those sub-areas from the
prohibition.
60 See Conservation Measure 06/06 on the Management of Vulnerable Deep Water Habitats and Ecosystems in the SEAFO Convention
Area at www.seafo.org. SEAFO has since decided that these areas would remain closed and fishing would not resume until certain
processes had been respected (see Conservation Measure 11/07 Laying Down Conditions for the Resumption of Fishing Activities in
Areas Subject to Closure through Conservation Measure 06/06).
56
32
A/64/…
management, which may include the extension of the application of the measures for an
additional period or making the closure(s) permanent.
(d)
Measures applicable for encounters with VMEs
90. In paragraph 83(d) of General Assembly resolution 61/105, RFMO/As with the
competence to regulate bottom fisheries were called upon to require vessels of members to
cease bottom fishing activities in areas where, in the course of fishing operations, VMEs
were encountered, and to report the encounter so that appropriate measures could be
adopted in respect of the relevant site. Competent RFMO/As have thus taken measures
that apply to vessels that encounter VMEs, including requiring vessels in these
circumstances to cease bottom fishing activities and report the encounter.
91. CCAMLR adopted measures that required members to implement specific measures to
monitor encounters with VMEs and notify CCAMLR of such encounters. In the absence of
site-specific or other conservation measures to prevent significant adverse impacts on
VMEs, vessels of Contracting Parties were required to cease bottom fishing activities in
any location where evidence of a VME was encountered in the course of fishing
operations. Such encounters were to be reported, in accordance with CCAMLR’s catch and
effort reporting system, so that appropriate measures could be adopted to prevent
significant adverse impact on VMEs.61 The CCAMLR Scientific Committee was also
required to provide advice to CCAMLR on the known and anticipated impacts of bottom
fishing activities on VMEs, and recommend practices, including ceasing fishing
operations, if needed, when evidence of a VME was encountered in the course of bottom
fishing operations.
92. In addition, CCAMLR adopted an interim measure for the 2008-2009 fishing season
for vessels involved in bottom longlining. The measure required these vessels to report
and, in some instances, move-on if there was sufficient evidence of the presence of VMEs.
These vessels were also required to immediately report the encounter to CCAMLR, which
would prohibit fishing in the area if the concentration of VMEs was sufficient to warrant
it. The CCAMLR Secretariat would keep records of locations where five or more VME
indicators were present. If it received five such notifications within a certain area, it would
notify all fishing vessels in the relevant fishery and their flag States that VMEs may be
present. If it received notification that ten or more VME indicators had been recovered in a
one line segment, as defined, all waters within a one nautical mile radius would be closed.
61
See CCAMLR Conservation Measure 22-06 (2008), Bottom fishing in the Convention Area, Annex 22-06/B.
33
A/64/…
The measure was to be reviewed by CCAMLR to determine if any modifications were
necessary. 62
93. In 2008, NAFO adopted interim encounter provisions for vessels operating potentially
harmful gear types (i.e. trawl, gillnet and long line) and encountering VMEs beyond a
defined threshold in the course of fishing operations.63 Vessels were required to report an
encounter with VMEs, cease fishing operations and move at least two nautical miles. For
exploratory fisheries in new fishing areas, a temporary closure of a two mile radius around
the reporting position would also be implemented. The information reported from such
encounters would then be scientifically assessed and reviewed by NAFO to determine and
adopt any necessary measures for the protection of VMEs.
94. In 2008, NEAFC adopted comprehensive measures on bottom fishing activities in the
NEAFC Regulatory Area, including specific operational procedures on dealing with
encounters with VMEs. Under these measures, vessels of the NEAFC Contracting Parties
were required to cease fishing activities in any site in the Regulatory Area where, in the
course of fishing operations, evidence of VMEs was encountered, and report the
encounter, including the location, and the type of the ecosystem in question, to the NEAFC
Secretariat so that appropriate measures could be adopted in respect of the relevant site.
The operational procedures for encounters defined an encounter using threshold levels of
indicator species of corals and other VME elements to identify, on a case by case basis, an
actual encounter with VMEs. For new and existing bottom fisheries, the procedures
required the cessation of fishing and the vessels to move on if the quantity of VME
elements or indicator species caught in a fishing operation was beyond the defined
threshold. In addition, procedures for temporary closures and conditions for the re-opening
of a temporary closure were provided in the case of new fishing areas.64
95. SEAFO adopted interim comprehensive conservation and management measures in
2008 relating to bottom fishing activities in all existing and new bottom fishing areas
outside SEAFO closed areas, including specific operational procedures on encounters with
VMEs.65 As in the case of the NEAFC procedures, the operational procedure on
encounters with VMEs required vessels to cease bottom fishing activities when the catch
of VME indicator organisms reached a certain defined threshold. VME indicator species
included antipatharians, gorgonians, cerianthid anemone fields, lophelia and sea pen
See CCAMLR Conservation Measure 22-07 (2008), Interim measure for bottom fishing activities subject to Conservation Measure
22-06 encountering potential vulnerable marine ecosystems in the Convention Area.
63 See NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures, Chapter Ibis, Article 5bis.
64 See NEAFC Recommendation XVI (2008) and Recommentation XIII (2009).
65 See Conservation Measures 06/06 on the Management of Vulnerable Deep Water Habitats and Ecosystems in the SEAFO Convention
Area.
62
34
A/64/…
fields. In the case of existing bottom fishing areas, vessels were required to move away at
least two nautical miles, while in the case of new fishing areas, an interim closure would
apply in a two nautical miles radius around the reporting position of the VMEs.
B.
Actions taken by States to regulate bottom fisheries
96. In resolution 61/105, the General Assembly called upon States to take action
immediately, individually and through RFMO/As, and consistent with the precautionary
approach and ecosystem approaches, to sustainably manage fish stocks and protect VMEs
from destructive fishing practices, recognizing the immense importance and value of deep
sea ecosystems and the biodiversity they contain. Paragraphs 85 to 87 of the resolution
also called upon States to take specific actions to regulate bottom fisheries and protect
VMEs. The following section summarizes information provided by a number of
respondents.66
1.
Overview of actions taken by States
97. Several States emphasized the significance of the adoption of General Assembly
resolution 61/105 (Canada, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United States) and the
importance of the protection of VMEs. It was noted that the adoption of the resolution
represented a regime shift for fisheries management, as it called for consideration of the
possible significant adverse impacts of bottom fishing activities on VMEs, and for these
impacts to be mitigated or fishing activities would not be allowed to proceed. The
resolution was a watershed moment, as it provided for a roadmap for the assessment of
individual bottom fishing activities, the identification and protection of VMEs, while
allowing for responsible fisheries to continue. There was a general recognition that deepsea habitats within and outside areas under national jurisdiction were extremely vulnerable
and greater efforts were required to ensure their protection, particularly in high-seas areas
where progress had been more limited.67
98. A large number of States reported on progress being made at the national and regional
levels in accordance with resolution 61/105 to ensure sustainable fisheries and prevent
Information was provided by the EC and the following States: Australia, Benin, Brazil, Canada, Chad, Chile, Cook
Islands, Croatia, Cuba, Iraq, Japan, Kuwait, Lithuania, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea,
Russian Federation, Senegal, Seychelles, Slovakia, Suriname, United Kingdom, United States, Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela and Yemen.
67 Canada, EC, New Zealand and the United States.
66
35
A/64/…
destructive fishing practices. Some States were in the process of amending their legislation
to incorporate fisheries management measures that were aimed at reducing the impacts of
fishing activities on VMEs, including the adoption of protected areas within areas under
national jurisdiction. Several States submitted information on actions taken to implement
the conservation and management measures adopted by RFMO/As, as well as measures
implemented to conserve VMEs and ensure the long-term sustainability of deep sea fish
stocks. States also reported on measures taken in areas under their national jurisdiction in
order to ensure, inter alia, consistency with measures to protect VMEs adopted by
RFMO/As for high seas areas under their competence.
99. States also welcomed the adoption of the FAO International Guidelines for the
Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas, and expressed their readiness to
actively engage in the FAO programmes for the implementation of the Guidelines and
would endeavour to collect available scientific information and take other necessary
actions for this purpose.
100. Those States participating in negotiations for the establishment of new international
fishing agreements have adopted interim measures and established scientific procedures to
protect VMEs and ensure the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks. In addition,
States have adopted and implemented laws and regulations to control fishing activities of
vessels flying their flag on the high seas in order to conserve VMEs and ensure the longterm sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks where there was no competent RFMO/As. Data
collection and research efforts were also underway to identify, protect and manage VMEs.
2.
Measures taken by States in areas within national jurisdiction
101. Several States reported on action taken with respect to areas within their national
jurisdiction to sustainably manage fish stocks and protect VMEs from destructive fishing
practices. Some States recalled that they had adopted such measures prior to the adoption
of resolution 61/105 (Canada, New Zealand, United States). States have adopted a wide
range of approaches and measures to sustainably manage fish stocks and protect VMEs
from destructive fishing practices, including the use of area-based management tools, and
conservation and management measures. Information was also provided regarding relevant
research and data collection activities. Some States (Benin, Chad, Croatia, Kuwait,
Senegal, Yemen) reported on the development of their national legal and policy
frameworks regarding sustainable fisheries and biodiversity.68
68
36
Benin reported on the adoption of the Fisheries Code in 2007, which was yet to be promulgated, and the adoption of its fisheries
A/64/…
102. A number of States (Canada, Cuba, Norway, United States) elaborated on their
respective frameworks for oceans management, regulation of fisheries and marine
biodiversity with respect to the protection of VMEs from destructive fishing practices.
Canada noted that, as a predominantly coastal fishing nation, it had developed a
sustainable fisheries framework, which was the foundation for implementing an ecosystem
approach in the management of fisheries. In support of this framework, a policy to manage
the impacts of fishing on sensitive benthic areas was developed. The policy applied to all
commercial, recreational and Aboriginal marine fishing activities that were licensed and/or
managed, both within and outside Canada’s EEZ. The policy outlined separate processes
for historically fished and frontier areas. It required greater precaution when fishing
activities were being considered in frontier areas. Special consideration was given to
historically fished areas that have not been exposed to bottom-contact fishing, in
particular, proposals for new bottom-contact fishing in these areas required risk
assessments prior to proceeding.
103. Canada’s integrated management process for the oceans, adopted under its Oceans
Act 1996, provided for the management of ocean-based activities to ensure the sustainable
use of marine resources and their habitats, including VMEs. The first integrated
management plan, released in 2007, provided direction and commitment for ecosystembased and adaptive management of marine activities.
104. Cuba reported that its fishing resources policy was based on a preventative approach
and mainly focused on preservation of marine ecosystems, in particular areas vulnerable to
damage from fishing activities.
105. Norway was working, in accordance with the precautionary approach, towards the
adoption and implementation of national regulations on bottom fishing, similar to those of
NAFO and NEAFC, in its EEZ, the fishery zone around Jan Mayen and the fishery
protection zone around Svalbard. The regulations would be adapted to national fisheries
and aimed at the protection of VMEs from destructive fishing practices. Norway noted that
its flagged vessels had a general duty of care when operating near known coral reefs to
protect the reefs against damage as a result of fishing activities and to contribute to sound
resource management. Furthermore, causing deliberate damage to coral reefs was
prohibited.
development policy, which was endorsed in March 2007 by various fisheries stakeholders. Chad reported on the recent adoption of
national fisheries legislation. Kuwait stated that it was implementing fisheries regulations with the purpose of conserving marine
biodiversity. Senegal reported that the new marine fisheries act would include the precautionary approach and the ecosystem
approaches.
37
A/64/…
106. Area-based management tools have been employed by States to protect VMEs from
destructive fishing practices and to sustainably manage fish stocks (Canada, New Zealand,
Peru, United States). A number of States have established MPAs, marine reserves, benthic
protected areas (BPAs) and other areas in which measures such as spatial closures,
temporal closures, restrictions or prohibitions on fishing activities, and gear modifications
applied.69
107. Canada highlighted two MPAs (Bowie Seamount MPA and Musquash estuary) in
which VMEs were found. The most common management measures used by Canada to
protect sensitive marine areas and sensitive species in its coastal areas in the Arctic
(including areas falling with the NAFO Regulatory Area), Atlantic and Pacific oceans,
were temporal and area closures and gear restrictions. The measures included the closures
of areas (including areas with sponge reefs, coral reefs, seamounts and spawning grounds),
for all or part of the year, to all fishing, restriction of certain fishing activities (including
mid-water and bottom trawling, and fishing for certain target species) and restriction of the
use of specified gear (including gear designed to come into contact with the sea floor and
demersal fishing gear). Gear restrictions included also minimum and maximum mesh sizes
for nets and traps, minimum size of long-line hooks, restrictions on the use of nets, design
requirements, and measures to minimize lost gear in order to reduce habitat destruction
and by-catch.
108. Cuba adopted management measures upon the completion of research projects that
focussed on species vulnerable to continued exploitation. The measures included the
establishment in 2007 and 2008 of a special use and protection regime in six areas. Other
measures included a permanent closed season to protect endangered species, including
turtle species; a temporary closed season for lobster, redtailed snapper, shrimp and conch;
minimum and maximum size limits for lobster exploitation; catch quotas for conch and sea
cucumber; and limits on shrimp fishing effort. Destructive fishing practices, in particular
the use of trawl nets causing damage to seabeds, would be phased out.
109. New Zealand has undertaken two major initiatives within its EEZ to protect VMEs
and other benthic habitats. In 2000, New Zealand prohibited all trawling and dredging in
18 areas around seamounts to protect the seafloor environment, which amounted to an area
of approximately 81,000 square kilometres. These closures protected 25 underwater
topographic features, 12 of which were large seamounts that rose more than 1000 metres
from the seafloor. In 2007, regulations were made under the Fisheries Act 1996
establishing BPAs over 1,134,000 square kilometres of New Zealand’s waters. In the
69
38
See also A/62/260, paras. 67-69, and A/63/128, paras. 66-69.
A/64/…
BPAs, dredging was prohibited and the use of nets restricted to avoid impacts on the
seafloor. Together, the seamount closures and BPAs protected 28 per cent of known
underwater topographic features, 52 per cent of known seamounts and 88 per cent of
known active hydrothermal vents.
110. Peru adopted a regulation governing the management of hake fishing, which
prohibited trawlers from fishing within specified distances from the coast and in
designated vulnerable areas. It also established closed seasons during spawning, and
imposed gear restrictions and size limits. Senegal and Qatar reported that they were
establishing MPAs.
111. The United States had taken a variety of domestic actions, through its regional
fisheries management councils or protected area programmes, to protect VMEs. Examples
included designating essential fish habitats, habitat areas of concern, MPAs, national marine
sanctuaries and marine national monuments, and developing regulations to reduce the
impacts of fishing activities on vulnerable benthic habitats and ecosystems. Specific
measures included prohibiting bottom trawling, limiting the expansion of bottom trawling,
prohibiting the use of specific gear (including fixed and/or mobile bottom-contact fishing
gear) and fishing techniques in certain areas or sites, and seasonal closures. The United
States noted that its efforts to protect VMEs within its EEZ were ongoing.
112. The United States indicated that its recent measures included the adoption of
precautionary measures “freezing the footprint” of bottom trawling in an area in the North
Bering Sea, which came into effect in July 2008; a call for public proposals to nominate new
habitat areas of particular concern in the New England region; the establishment of eight
deepwater MPAs in the south Atlantic; and the approval in January 2009 of an additional area
in the Gulf of Mexico to be managed with gear restrictions and seasonal closures. In January
2009, three new marine national monuments were declared (Rose Atoll, Pacific Remote
Islands, and Marianas Trench) and management regimes for all three monuments were
being developed. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council planned to vote in June
2009 on banning bottom trawls, bottom long-lines and other destructive fishing gear across
23,000 square miles, an area thought to encompass the largest deepwater reef system in the
world.
113. Several States also reported on management measures adopted in areas within
national jurisdiction to conserve and manage fish stocks, and protect VMEs.70 The
measures included the prohibition of bottom-trawling entirely within their EEZs at certain
70
See also A/62/260, para. 69, and A/63/128, paras. 66- 68.
39
A/64/…
depths or within certain distances from their coastlines (Croatia, Qatar, Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela).
114. Croatia stated that it would incorporate within its domestic law the prohibition of
trawling below 1000 metres, as adopted by the GFCM. The Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela reported that artisanal bottom fishing would be progressively replaced by other
methods that would guarantee the sustainable development of fisheries resources and the
marine environment. In addition, States have prohibited the use of destructive fishing gear
in all or specific areas (Benin, Qatar), prohibited pair-trawling (Benin), prohibited fishing
in nursery habitats (Kuwait), closed areas to fishing for certain stocks during breeding
seasons (Kuwait), imposed gear restrictions (Kuwait, Yemen), and required trawl vessels
to use turtle excluder devices (Suriname). Seychelles reported that it did not issue licences
for deep sea fishing in its EEZ.
115. New Zealand reported that it managed its major deep sea stocks under the quota
management system (QMS). For the period 2007-2008, there was sufficient information to
characterize stock status for 101 of the 628 stocks in the QMS. This accounted for 66 per
cent of total landings by weight and value and represented the main commercial species.
Of the 101 stocks or sub-stocks with known status 72 were near or above target levels. For
those below optimum levels, rebuilding plans or other management controls were in place.
116. Peru has adopted regulations governing the conservation and management of the
Patagonian toothfish, which provided for the application of selective fishing methods
using only long-lines with multiple hooks and bottom long-lines, and the regulation of
fishing effort. These measures were in accordance with the measures adopted by
CCAMLR.
117. Some States emphasized the importance of scientific advice in fisheries management
(Canada, New Zealand) and provided details of their research and data collection activities
to identify, protect and manage VMEs (Canada, Croatia, Norway, Peru, United States).71
Canada supported scientific research and international collaboration, which focussed on
detecting, identifying and mapping VMEs, and assessing significant adverse impacts and
recoverability. Croatia reported that it had developed monitoring and research programmes
to determine the status of small pelagic fish and demersal resources, and assess the impact
of demersal gears on non-commercial stocks. Croatia has participated in international
programmes and surveys, such as the Mediterranean International Bottom Trawl-Survey. A
national project to map VMEs in the Mediterranean Sea region, in particular seagrass
71
40
See also A/63/128, paras. 70 and 71.
A/64/…
(posidonia) beds was underway. The Cook Islands was in the process of developing a
certified data collection officer programme.
118. The EC reported that through the HERMES project (Hotspot Ecosystems Research
on the Margins of European Seas), it was seeking to better understand the boundaries,
structure and dynamics of marine ecosystems; the response of those ecosystems to human
activities, with special emphasis on fishing; and forecasting the effects of fishing in light
of biological interactions of small groups of fish stocks. The integrated study of oceanic
seamounts sought to better assess naturally occurring mechanisms of ecosystem
functioning. The HERMES project has also studied “hotspot” ecosystems, which were
discontinuous environments that were constrained by chemical, physical, topographic and
geological factors and which contained a wealth of unknown species that thrived in insular
habitats. Determining the distribution and resilience of these ecosystems was fundamental
to producing plans for their sustainable management.72
119. Norway and Peru referred to the need for research and scientific information for the
adoption and implementation of measures concerning VMEs. The United States reported
that a research plan for the Northern Bering Sea Research Area was under development.
120. Some States also provided information regarding monitoring, control and
surveillance measures in areas under their national jurisdiction (Croatia, Suriname, United
States). Croatia monitored vessels flying its flag through Vessel Monitoring Systems
(VMS). Suriname’s domestic trawl vessels were required to carry VMS. The United States
reported that from 2003, VMS was required for rock shrimp fishing vessels in the South
Atlantic region to enhance surveillance and enforcement of the Oculina habitat area of
particular concern.
3.
Implementation by States of measures adopted by competent RFMO/As
121. States have attached great importance to the protection of marine ecosystems and
they have made active efforts to implement the measures recommended by the General
Assembly to RFMO/As, as contained in paragraph 83 of resolution 61/105, in application
of the precautionary approach to protect VMEs. States recognized the role of RFMO/As as
primary mechanisms for managing deep-water fisheries and their impacts on VMEs in
areas beyond national jurisdiction.73 They have, therefore, adopted laws and regulations to
72
73
http://www.eu-hermes.net/ .
Submissions by Canada, EC, Japan and United States.
41
A/64/…
ensure compliance by vessels flying their flags with conservation and management
measures adopted by RFMO/As in areas falling under their competence.
122. In particular, these laws and regulations addressed the requirement for all high seas
bottom fishing vessels to: (i) assess potential adverse impacts of bottom fishing activities
on VMEs; (ii) identify VMEs and determine whether bottom fishing activities would have
significant adverse impacts to such ecosystems; (iii) close areas where VMEs were known
or likely to occur, until conservation and management measures have been established to
prevent significant adverse impacts on such ecosystems; and (iv) cease bottom fishing
activities in areas where VMEs were encountered. In addition, States have endeavoured to
improve scientific research and data collection and sharing, and conduct exploratory
fisheries, in order to identify VMEs and determine whether bottom fishing activities would
have significant adverse impacts on such ecosystems and the long-term sustainability of
deep-sea fish stocks.
123. In the CCAMLR Convention Area, several States (Australia, Canada, Chile, New
Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United States) in accordance
with resolution 61/105, have taken measures to implement the conservation and
management measures adopted by the Organization.
124. Australia indicated that it had provided assistance to CCAMLR in the protection of
VMEs and the management of bottom fishing activities in the CCAMLR Convention Area.
Since the adoption of resolution 61/105, it had implemented CCAMLR’s conservation
measures giving effect to the resolution and worked on the identification of VMEs as well
as the improvement of data collection. Following a proposal by Australia in 2008,
CCAMLR placed the first two areas with VMEs on the CCAMLR VME register.
125. New Zealand implemented CCAMLR’s conservation and management measures
through the imposition of conditions on permits issued to fishing vessels flying its flag
intending to fish in the Convention Area. These conditions required these vessels to use
only bottom longline method of fishing; fish only in areas for which CCAMLR has
approved such fishing; collect VME indicator data and report data in accordance with
regulation requirements; abide by any fishing area closure; and refrain from fishing at
depths shallower than 550 metres in the exploratory toothfish fisheries. Vessels carried
both a CCAMLR scientific observer and a national observer. New Zealand has also
submitted to CCAMLR a comprehensive preliminary assessment of the impacts of its
proposed bottom fishing activities for 2008-2009. Further reports on risk assessment
methodology for assessing the potential impacts of bottom longlines on VMEs and a field
guide for observers to help in the identification of VME indicator species were submitted
42
A/64/…
in 2008. In addition, New Zealand vessels fishing in some specific areas were required to
collect all potential VME indicators caught through fishing and return them to port.
Results of sample analyses were presented to the Workshop held in the United States in
August 2009 and also used for New Zealand’s preliminary assessment for 2009-2010.
126. The Russian Federation observed that it had played an active role in the development
of CCAMLR Conservation Measure 22-06 (2008) to regulate bottom fisheries in the
Convention Area. Chile applied the conservation measures adopted by CCAMLR in 2008
to regulate bottom fisheries and protect VMEs. One such measure restricted the use of
bottom trawling gear in high seas areas of the Convention Area to areas where
conservation measures were in force for such gear. Other conservation measures provided
procedures for the assessment of bottom fishing, encounters with VMEs, monitoring and
control of bottom fishing activities, data collection and sharing, as well as measures to
establish a procedure for confirming the existence of VMEs and measures aimed at
preventing fishing activities from impacting such ecosystems, including temporary
cessation of fishing activities.
127. The United States stated that, on the basis of its proposal, CCAMLR adopted in 2007
conservation and management measures consistent with resolution 61/105. Such measures
went beyond the provision of the resolution in several respects, including a requirement
that all vessels engaged in bottom fishing carry an observer onboard. In support of
CCAMLR measures, it hosted in 2009 a Workshop on CCAMLR area VME indicators to
facilitate data sharing and assist CCAMLR in further refining its bottom fishing measures.
The Republic of Korea had implemented CCAMLR Conservation Measure 22-06 (2008),
which subjected all individual bottom fishing activities commencing on 1 December 2008
to assessment by the CCAMLR Scientific Committee to determine whether such activities
would have adverse impacts on VMEs.
128. Brazil noted that it was a party to CCAMLR, but did not practice any fishing in the
area regulated by the Organization. However, it acknowledged that CCAMLR had
received “preliminary” impact assessments from some flag States bottom fishing in the
region and that those “preliminary” impact assessments did not fully comply with the
criteria for impact assessments established in the FAO International Guidelines for the
Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas.
129. In the North-West Atlantic region, several respondents (Canada, EC, Lithuania,
Russian Federation, Spain, United States) had taken measures to implement measures
adopted by NAFO in its Regulatory Area. Canada reported that it was actively
participating in NAFO activities as a Contracting Party and as a coastal State with stocks
43
A/64/…
straddling the NAFO Regulatory Area. Canada noted that it played an important role in the
regime shift of NAFO towards the effective protection of VMEs, leading to the creation of
new bodies to respond to the need to identify VMEs and assess and mitigate effects of
fishing activities, the adoption of new management measures, and a commitment to
additional science to support decision making. In order to support research efforts in
NAFO, Canada planned to undertake research surveys to enhance knowledge of benthic
habitat, including delineation of the location of corals and sponges in the NAFO
Regulatory Area. Moreover, it established a Centre for Expertise on Cold Water Corals and
Sponge Reefs in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, dedicated to compiling current
information and available resources on corals and sponges on a national basis.
130. The EC reported that it supported the closures of VME areas identified by the NAFO
Joint Working Group Meeting of Fisheries Managers and Scientists on VMEs in March
2009. In connection with the presentation by the Joint Working Group to the 2009 NAFO
Annual Meeting regarding options for the introduction of interim closures of identified
VMEs in relation to corals, the EC strongly suggested that a risk analysis be undertaken on
the option retained. In addition, the EC proposed to lower substantially the encounter
thresholds triggering the identification of VMEs during fishing operations and stressed the
need to develop a “footprint” of existing fisheries, as well as to declare any fisheries
conducted outside the “footprint” area as new fisheries to be subject to the specific NAFO
protocol for such fisheries.
131. In June 2009, Spain conducted an international mapping project of VMEs at depths
of less than 2000 metres. In addition to Spanish scientific bodies, other scientists from
Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom participated in the project. Lithuania
indicated that as a contracting party to NAFO, it had enforced a ban on fishing in a defined
area of significant coral concentration that spanned between the high seas and the
Canadian EEZ, as well as a 2009 Conservation and Enforcement Measure on “Bottom
fisheries in the NAFO”. The United States reported that its National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration had supported research in the NAFO region on the New
England seamount chain and the Corner Rise seamount cluster. In each of these seamount
areas, it identified vulnerable deep coral ecosystems that had the potential to be seriously
damaged by bottom-tending fishing gear, especially bottom trawl gear.
132. In the North-East Atlantic region, several respondents (Lithuania, EC, Norway,
Russian Federation) provided information on action they had taken to comply with the
conservation and management measures adopted by NEAFC in its Regulatory Area.
Norway implemented the conservation and management measures established by NEAFC
and NAFO to protect VMEs, through its regulations of 9 February 2009 on bottom fishing
44
A/64/…
activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction in the North-East Atlantic Ocean and the
North-West Atlantic Ocean. In 2009, the EC proposed that NEAFC close the areas
identified by OSPAR and extend the area closure to Hatton bank, based on the Spanish
surveys of the seabed and an ICES recommendation to that effect. No agreement was
reached on these proposals. The EC made also a proposal to reduce immediately by 50 per
cent the current thresholds of 100 kilograms of live corals and 1,000 kilograms of live
sponges, which triggered the identification of possible VMEs during fishing operations.
NEAFC agreed to recommend new reduced levels of thresholds at its 2009 Annual
Meeting.
133. In respect of its fishing vessels, Lithuania enforced the regulations adopted by
NEAFC to implement paragraph 83 of resolution 61/105, including the prohibition in 2007
of bottom fishing in some areas of the Regulatory Area to protect deep-water corals; the
reduction of effort in all deep-water bottom fisheries by 35 per cent; the prohibition of
gillnets, entangling nets and trammel nets below 200 metres; and the removal of unmarked
or illegal fixed gear and retrieval of lost gear to minimize ghost fishing. It also
implemented NEAFC Recommendation XVI (2008) on the identification of existing
bottom fishing areas, bottom fishing activities in new bottom fishing areas, assessment of
bottom fishing activities and encounters with VMEs, as well as NEAFC Recommendation
XIV (2009) for the protection of vulnerable deep-water habitats and NEAFC
Recommendation XIII (2009) on fishing activities in existing and new bottom fishing
areas.
134. The Russian Federation indicated that it had participated actively in the development
of measures to regulate deep-sea fisheries and protection of VMEs, within relevant
RFMO/As, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 61/105. It had been involved
in several NAFO and NEAFC activities concerning the management of bottom fisheries,
such as the scientific justification of the closure of fisheries to bottom fishing in some
areas of NAFO and the regulation of bottom fisheries in NEAFC’s and NAFO’s respective
Regulatory Areas. It had also monitored compliance by its vessels with the measures
adopted by NEAFC and NAFO to regulate bottom fisheries, including through the
adoption of regulations by the Russian Federal Agency for Fisheries; the preliminary
approval and analysis of applications for bottom fishing activities from Russian vessel
owners; the issuing of authorizations to vessel owners, taking into account the regulations
of NEAFC and NAFO for bottom fisheries; and monitoring the activities of fishing vessels
through satellite VMS and inspections, to prevent violations in areas with VMEs.
135. In the South-East Atlantic region, a number of States (Japan, Republic of Korea) and
the EC reported on the actions they had taken to implement the measures adopted by
45
A/64/…
SEAFO, in accordance with resolution 61/105. The EC stated that, on the basis of its
proposals, SEAFO adopted Conservation Measure 06/6 (2006), which closed several areas
that were deemed to be vulnerable deep water habitats and ecosystems, as well as
Conservation Measure 11/07 (2007), which laid down the conditions for the opening of
fisheries in previously closed areas. The conditions required that mapping of the
concerned area be undertaken, along with an impact assessment and a research fishery
plan, before fishing was allowed to resume.
136. Japan required vessels flying its flag operating in the SEAFO Convention Area to
comply with SEAFO conservation measures, despite the fact that it had observer status
with SEAFO. These measures included submission of catch data, entry/exit reports to
SEAFO fishing areas, mandatory onboard scientific observers, submission of observer
reports, and equipping vessels with VMS. Compliance with these regulations ensured the
transparency of its fishing operations in the SEAFO Convention Area. Japan, however, did
not adopt any of the mitigation measures adopted by SEAFO to prevent serious adverse
impacts on VMEs, as its fishing fleet operated longline fisheries and crab pot fisheries in
the Convention Area, which caused less adverse impacts on VMEs than trawl fisheries.
The Republic of Korea also indicated that it had observer status with SEAFO, but it had
complied with SEAFO Conservation Measure 12/08 on Bottom Fishing Activities, which
was adopted as an interim measure at the SEAFO fifth Annual Meeting to implement
resolution 61/105.
137. In the GFCM Convention Area, Croatia, as a member of the GFCM, implemented the
prohibition of trawling below 1000 metres established by the Organization in the area
under its competence. It also applied a strict licensing regime for its fishing vessels
operating in the Convention Area.
4.
Establishment of new RFMO/As with competence to regulate bottom fisheries
and adoption and implementation of interim measures
138. Paragraph 85 of General Assembly resolution 61/105 called upon States participating
in negotiations to establish a regional fisheries management organization or arrangement
competent to regulate bottom fisheries to expedite such negotiations and, by no later than
31 December 2007, to adopt and implement interim measures consistent with paragraph 83
of the resolution and make these measures publicly available. States have thus recognized
the importance of protecting VMEs as habitats for marine biodiversity in areas where no
competent RFMO/A exists, given the vulnerability of deep-sea species to exploitation and
their low potential for recovery. Several States have made efforts to establish new
46
A/64/…
RFMO/As in the North-West and South Pacific, including through the adoption of interim
measures to sustainably manage fish stocks and protect VMEs, pending the entry into
force of the agreement or arrangement to establish the new RFMO/A and the adoption of
conservation and management regimes.
139. In respect of the South Indian Ocean, the South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement
(SIOFA) was adopted at a conference convened by FAO in Rome in July 2006. The
Agreement has the mandate to conserve and manage non-tuna resources in areas beyond
national jurisdiction of coastal States in the Southern Indian Ocean. Six States (Comoros,
France, Kenya, Mozambique, New Zealand and Seychelles) and the EC have signed the
Agreement. However, it has not yet entered into force. At the conference, two resolutions
were adopted by the participants, one addressing data collection and handling of
information and data pertaining to high seas fisheries, and the other addressing interim
arrangements for the conservation and management of the high seas fishery resources in
the Southern Indian Ocean, and calling on interested States and regional economic
integration organizations to cooperate towards the conservation and management of the
fishery resources covered by the Agreement, pending its entry into force. The interim
arrangements include data collection relating to fisheries and fishery resources, facilitation
of scientific assessments of stocks, development of standards for vessel authorization, and
arrangements for secretariat services. 74
140. At the conclusion of the conference, members of the Southern Indian Ocean
Deepwater Fisheries Association (SIODFA), who had been fishing in the Agreement Area
since 1996, announced the voluntary closure to fishing by their vessels of 11 high seas
areas representing 309,000 square kilometers. It was stated that these BPAs would result in
the conservation of deepwater corals and other related bottom fauna.75 The Cook Islands
reported that it supported the initiatives of SIODFA.
(a)
North-West Pacific
141. Status of negotiations. A number of States76 have been participating in consultations
to establish a new mechanism for management of high seas bottom trawling in the NorthWest Pacific Ocean.77 Six intergovernmental meetings have been held to date and the
See A/61/154, paras. 190 and 191.
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000360/index.html .
76 Canada, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation and United States.
77 The new agreement covers the high seas areas of the North-West Pacific Ocean, defined as those occurring within FAO Statistical
Area No. 61, including all such areas and marine species other than (i) those already covered by existing international fisheries
management instruments, including bilateral agreements and RFMO/As, and (ii) closed high seas areas surrounded by the EEZ of a
74
75
47
A/64/…
discussions have led to the adoption of voluntary interim measures to give effect to the
relevant provisions of General Assembly resolution 61/105. The interim measures were
adopted at the second intergovernmental meeting held in Busan, Republic of Korea, in
2007, and further strengthened at meetings held in 2007 and 2008. At the sixth
intergovernmental meeting held in Busan in 2009, the interim measures were further
amended to reflect additional elements and to clarify implementation in a number of key
areas.78
142. In parallel with ongoing work to meet the requirements of resolution 61/105
concerning interim measures, participating States have continued to negotiate an
instrument to establish the new regional fishery management mechanism. In accordance
with paragraph 85 of resolution 61/105, which called on States participating in
negotiations to establish a RFMO/A competent to regulate bottom fisheries to expedite
such negotiations, the Interim Secretariat of Management of High Seas Bottom Fisheries
in the North Western Pacific Ocean (NWPO) prepared a draft convention text for a longterm management mechanism. Preliminary discussions of the draft convention text were
initiated at the third intergovernmental meeting held in Honolulu, United States, in 2007.
The participating States discussed potential future governance options, primarily the
expansion of the current geographical scope and the fishery resources that would be
covered in the future agreement. Those discussions continued at the fourth
intergovernmental meeting in Vladivostock, Russian Federation, in 2008.
143. At the fifth intergovernmental meeting held in Tokyo, Japan, in 2008, participating
States agreed to expand the geographical scope of the convention and agreed, in principle,
to expand the species to be covered. The new draft text, prepared by the Interim
Secretariat, was discussed at the sixth intergovernmental meeting. Participating States
agreed to expedite the negotiations, with Canada attending the meeting for the first time as
a coastal State in the North Pacific.
144. It is anticipated that the negotiations will continue through 2009 and likely into 2010.
The future RFMO will provide for management of bottom fisheries conducted by vessels
operating on the high seas and sustainable management of fish stocks and protection of
VMEs in the high seas areas of the North-West Pacific Ocean.
145. Adoption of interim measures. At the second intergovernmental meeting held in 2007,
participating States adopted interim measures, as required by paragraph 85 of resolution
61/105, which were to be applicable and operational no later than 31 December 2007,
78
48
single country.
See, New Mechanisms for Protection of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems and Sustainable Management of High Seas Bottom Fisheries
A/64/…
unless otherwise stated. At the third intergovernmental meeting, following discussions on
the implementation of the interim measures, participating States agreed to revise the
measures. At the fourth intergovernmental meeting, States discussed ongoing work to
fulfil their obligations under resolution 61/105, namely the establishment of science-based
criteria for use in assessing whether fishing activity would have significant adverse
impacts on VMEs, and the time frame for carrying out such work.
146. At the fifth intergovernmental meeting, the participating States adopted draft
standards and criteria to identify VMEs and to assess impacts of bottom fisheries on such
ecosystems and marine species; a working definition of corals for the Emperor Seamounts
and North Hawaiian Ridge area; and observer programme standards, including information
to be collected and a format for an annual report on observers. At the sixth
intergovernmental meeting, participating States adopted an exploratory fisheries
protocol.79
147. The revised interim measures set out the objectives of the sustainable management of
fish stocks and the protection of VMEs, and include provisions on geographic scope,
management principles, collection of fisheries and scientific information, establishment of
a scientific working group, information sharing, and effective control of bottom fishing
vessels. The measures limit fishing effort to the existing level and do not allow the
expansion of bottom fisheries into new areas. Exceptions to the restrictions are only
possible where it can be shown that any fishing activity beyond the limits or in any new
areas would not have significant adverse impacts on marine species or any VME.
However, such fishing activities would be subject to the exploratory fishery protocol.
148. In accordance with paragraph 83(a) of resolution 61/105, the interim measures
contain science-based criteria, consistent with the FAO International Guidelines, for
assessing whether fishing activity would have significant adverse impacts on marine
species or VMEs, and propose management measures to prevent such impacts. Regarding
improving scientific research and data collection and sharing, the interim measures
provide for the collection of information to facilitate the scientific work associated with
the implementation of the measures. To that end, the Scientific Working Group of NWPO
was working to identify and evaluate information necessary to identify VMEs as well as
79
in the Northwestern Pacific Ocean at http://nwpbfo.nomaki.jp/index.html.
See, New Mechanisms for Protection of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems and Sustainable Management of High Seas Bottom Fisheries
in the Northwestern Pacific Ocean, Exploratory Fishery Protocol in the North Pacific Ocean (Annex 1), Science-based Standards and
Criteria for Identification of VMEs and Assessment of Significant Adverse Impacts on VMEs and Marine Species (Annex 2), Format
of National Report Sections on Development and Implementation of Scientific Observer Programmes (Annex 4), Observer
Programme Draft Standards: Scientific Component (Annex 5), available at http://nwpbfo.nomaki.jp/index.html.
49
A/64/…
information necessary to assess whether bottom fishing activities would have significant
adverse impacts on VMEs.80
149. The interim measures also provide for area closures and for encounters with VMEs,
in accordance with paragraphs 83(c) and (d) of resolution 61/105. Bottom fisheries in the
area where VMEs were known or likely to occur, based on the best scientific information,
would cease by 31 December 2008, unless conservation and management measures were
established to prevent significant adverse impacts on VMEs.
150. Regarding VME encounters, vessels of participating States were required to cease
fishing activities in any location where, in the course of normal fishing operations, coldwater corals were encountered. 81 In such cases, a vessel would not resume fishing
activities until it had relocated a sufficient distance, no less than five nautical miles, to
reduce the likelihood of future encounters. All such encounters, including the location and
the species in question, would be reported to the Interim Secretariat of NWPO, which
would notify other participating States, so that appropriate measures could be adopted in
respect of the relevant site. The exploratory fisheries protocol was established to provide
guidance on conducting an exploratory fishery so as to ensure consistency with both the
interim measures and resolution 61/105.
151. Consensus on management measures had yet to be reached among participating
States concerning the area or areas to be closed because of the known or likely presence of
VMEs;82 the measures to be taken to promote sustainability of target fish stocks;83 and the
development a VME encounter protocol. A more detailed encounter protocol was currently
under extensive discussion.84 There were also differences of opinion as to what
management measures should be introduced in response to findings of participating States
on the identification of VMEs and determination of whether bottom fishing activities
would cause significant adverse impacts to VMEs and the long-term sustainability of
deep-sea fish stocks.
152. Implementation of interim measures. The Republic of Korea and the Russian
Federation have agreed to restrict their bottom fishing activities on the high seas of the
North-West Pacific ocean to their current levels, in order to comply with the interim
measures. The Republic of Korea indicated it would deploy 100 per cent observer
See, New Mechanisms for Protection of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems and Sustainable Management of High Seas Bottom Fisheries
in the Northwestern Pacific Ocean, Scientific Working Group Assessment Review Procedures for Bottom Fishing Activities (Annex
3), available at http://nwpbfo.nomaki.jp/index.html.
81 It has been tentatively agreed that cold water corals include: alcyonacea, antipatharia, gorgonacea, and scleractinia.
82 In the absence of consensus, some participating States have agreed amongst themselves to close certain areas.
83 Principally, North Pacific armorhead and splendid alfonsin.
84 In the absence of consensus, some participating States have decided to apply their own threshold standard.
80
50
A/64/…
coverage onboard of all its bottom trawling vessels by late 2009, for the purpose of
identifying potential significant adverse impacts on VMEs.
153. The Russian Federation indicated that, beside its effort within a Scientific Working
Group to assess information for the designation of VMEs, it had refrained from
undertaking bottom trawling in areas in which the best scientific information indicated the
presence of the VME indicator species corallium spp. In application of the precautionary
approach, it had extended protection of VMEs to surrounding areas, by requiring fishing
vessels to move at least five nautical miles from the location of these VMEs. It also
planned to ban trawling on all seamount areas by the end of 2009, except for scientific and
exploratory purposes, to reduce fishing for alfonsino and armorhead.
154. The United States reported that it had never participated in commercial bottom
fisheries at the Emperor seamounts in the North-West Pacific ocean. However, given the
fact that the EEZ of the United States was immediately adjacent to the southern end of the
fishing area of concern and that the northernmost portion of the EEZ surrounding the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands included seamounts that were bottom fished in the past,
the United States had completed an assessment as a coastal State whose EEZ contained the
same stocks of many affected species. It had also proposed that additional interim
conservation and management measures for marine species and potential VME sites be
adopted, including a zonal closure for the highest priority area identified as habitat for an
indicator species (Corallium) of a seamount and a second zonal closure for the purpose of
helping to rebuild the North Pacific armorhead stock.
155. The United States noted that after the review in December 2008 and February 2009
of the assessments conducted by each State and the proposed conservation and
management measures, the participating States were unable to reach consensus on what
management measures should be implemented by all fishing States in response to the
findings. It was, therefore, up to each flag State, under the terms of resolution 61/105 to
determine whether fishing would continue to be authorized beyond 31 December 2008
and, if so, any additional management measures to be adopted for such fishing activity.
156. Japan and the Republic of Korea pointed out that, in the absence of a consensus on a
VME encounter protocol, they would apply their own standard based on a
recommendation by NAFO in establishing its encounter protocol, which they considered
an improvement over the current provision contained in the interim measure.
51
A/64/…
(b)
South Pacific
157. Status of negotiations. Participants in the international consultations to establish the
SPRFMO, a regional fisheries management organization for the conservation and
management of non-highly migratory species of the high seas in the South Pacific, have
been seeking to conduct their negotiations in accordance with paragraph 85 of General
Assembly resolution 61/105. Seven negotiating rounds have been held to date, the first of
which was held in Wellington, New Zealand, in 2006. At the third meeting, held in
Reñaca, Chile, in 2007, interim measures were adopted, including measures to manage
bottom fishing and control the impact of bottom fishing on VMEs.
158. Negotiations on the draft agreement have advanced and are anticipated to conclude in
late 2009 or early 2010. The future RFMO was expected to provide for the conservation
and management of high seas marine living resources in the South Pacific, other than
species listed in Annex I of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Establishment of the RFMO would address a governance gap in a wide area of high seas
from the eastern edge of the Southern Indian Ocean, across the Tasman Sea and the Pacific
Ocean to the high seas areas adjacent to the areas under national jurisdiction of South
American States, where fisheries for certain straddling fish stocks and discrete high seas
fish stocks, including orange roughy, squid and mackerel, have been subject to little or no
control at all.
159. In recognition of the special requirements of developing States, in particular small
island developing States, participants at the third meeting were urged to provide financial,
scientific and technical assistance, where available, to enhance the ability of those
developing States to implement the interim measures and participate effectively in the
negotiations regarding the SPRFMO draft agreement.
160. Adoption of interim measures. At the third meeting in 2007, participants agreed to a
set of voluntary, non-legally binding, interim conservation and management measures for
fisheries that were the subject of the negotiations. The interim measures were to be
implemented by participants, in accordance with their laws and regulations, taking into
account an ecosystem approach to fisheries management and the precautionary approach,
for vessels flying their flag and fishing for non-highly migratory fish species in the high
seas of the South Pacific Ocean, in order to achieve the sustainable management of fish
stocks and the protection of VMEs of the area.85
85
52
Interim Measures adopted by Participants in Negotiations to establish SPRFMO, 3rd International Meeting, Reñaca, Chile, 30 April-4
May (www.southpacificrfmo.org).
A/64/…
161. As the future convention area of the SPRFMO was still under negotiation, the interim
measures were to apply to the high seas area south of the Equator, north of the CCAMLR
Convention Area, east of the area covered by SIOFA, and west of the areas of fisheries
jurisdictions of South American States. The interim measures were to be effective from
30 September 2007 and, unless specified otherwise, were to apply until the entry into force
of the agreement under negotiation, and the adoption of conservation and management
measures pursuant to that Agreement. Participants were to review the interim measures, as
necessary, so that they might be revised at future meetings.
162. Among the interim measures relating to bottom fisheries, participants resolved to
limit bottom fishing effort or catch to existing levels (i.e. annual average levels over the
period from 1 January to 31 December 2006) in terms of the number of fishing vessels and
other parametres that reflected the level of catch, fishing effort and fishing capacity; and
not to expand bottom fishing activities into new regions in the high seas of the South
Pacific Ocean where such fishing was not occurring. Starting in 2010, before opening new
regions or expanding fishing effort or catch beyond existing levels, participants resolved
to establish conservation and management measures to prevent significant adverse impacts
of bottom fishing activities on VMEs and the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish
stocks, or determine that the activities would not have adverse impacts, based on
assessments undertaken in accordance with the interim measures.
163. The interim measures also addressed the need for participants to cooperate in
identifying, on the basis of the best available scientific information, VMEs in the area and
to map sites where those ecosystems were located, and to provide such data and
information to the Interim Secretariat of SPRFMO for circulation to all participants. In
respect of areas where VMEs were known to occur or were likely to occur, based on the
best available scientific information, participants resolved to close such areas to bottom
fishing unless, based on an assessment undertaken in accordance with the interim
measures, conservation and management measures had been established to prevent
significant adverse impacts on VMEs and the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish
stocks, or it had been determined that such bottom fishing would not have significant
adverse impacts on such ecosystems or the long term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks.
164. Regarding encounters with VMEs, participants agreed to require that vessels flying
their flag would cease bottom fishing activities within five nautical miles of any site in the
area where, in the course of fishing operations, evidence of VMEs was encountered, and
53
A/64/…
report the encounter to the Interim Secretariat so that appropriate measures could be
adopted in respect of the relevant site.
165. The interim measures also provided specific procedures for participants to assess, on
the basis of the best available scientific information, whether individual bottom fishing
activities would have significant adverse impacts on VMEs, and to ensure that if it was
assessed that these activities would have significant adverse impacts, they were managed
to prevent such impacts, or not authorized to proceed. In that regard, a benthic assessment
framework was adopted at the fourth meeting, held in Noumea, New Caledonia, in 2007,
to guide States in undertaking impact assessments, as required by the interim measures,
including a process of review by other participants. Procedures were also adopted at the
sixth meeting, held in Canberra, Australia, in 2008, for the collection, reporting,
verification and exchange of data.86
166. The interim Science Working Group of SPRFMO was in the process of reviewing
standards for the assessment of bottom fisheries in light of the recently approved FAO
International Guidelines. The interim Science Working Group would address issues
relating to the definition of “vulnerable marine ecosystem,” the mapping of seamounts, the
management and assessment of deep-sea species, and develop guidelines for annual
national reports to the interim Science Working Group. It had also begun the process of
assembling information on the updated database of seamounts in the area and the
development of a geospatial database of joint bottom trawl footprint, seamounts and
VMEs.
167. At the seventh meeting, held in Lima, Peru, in 2009, participants discussed a draft
bottom fishery impact assessment standard prepared by New Zealand for its vessels
fishing in the high seas areas under the competence of SPRFMO during 2008 and 2009.87
The assessment required all vessels undertaking bottom trawling in moderately trawled
areas to complete a VME evidence process form and record by-catch of 11 specified
taxonomic groups recovered in any bottom trawling operation. Threshold weights were
specified for each group which, if exceeded, were allocated a “VME indicator score”
based on the apparent sensitivity of each group to impact. If the total score showed
evidence of a VME, the vessel was required to stop fishing, to notify the Interim
Secretariat of SPRFMO of the location, and to move at least five nautical miles before
resuming fishing. Once adopted, the assessment standard would replace the assessment
See, Standards for the collection, reporting, verification and exchange of data, 6 October 2008, available at:
http://www.southpacificrfmo.org/interim-measures.
87 Available at http://www.southpacificrfmo.org/benthic-impact-assessments/.
86
54
A/64/…
framework in the interim measures to provide participants with more detailed guidance on
undertaking impact assessments.
168. Implementation of interim measures. In the South Pacific region, a number of the
States participating in the negotiations for the establishment of the SPRFMO have taken
measures to implement the interim measures adopted by the participants. New Zealand
has developed a step-wise approach to implementing the SPRFMO interim measures, with
the highest priority given to bottom trawling. Initial steps focussed on giving effect to the
area and effort limitations specified in the interim measures, and, based on the best
available scientific information, limiting bottom trawling to those areas that were most
likely to have been compromised by previous bottom trawling activities. Lightly trawled
areas were closed to bottom trawling. In moderately trawled areas, vessels were required
to cease fishing if evidence of VMEs was encountered above established levels and move
five nautical miles from the position. For heavily trawled areas, it was considered on the
basis of the best available information that VMEs would have already been significantly
impacted, and therefore, the “encounter provisions” of paragraph 83 of resolution 61/105
had not been applied to such areas.
169. All vessels undertaking bottom trawling in moderately trawled areas were required to
complete a VME Evidence Process form after every tow, to determine whether “evidence
of a VME” had been encountered. If a vessel did encounter “evidence of a VME”, it was
required to stop fishing, to notify the location of the encounter, and to move at least five
nautical miles before resuming fishing. In addition, all vessels were required to carry
scientific observers mandated to record and report to the Ministry of Fisheries of New
Zealand all benthic by-catches on a tow-by-tow basis for every tow in all areas. Such
report had to be completed in addition to the VME Evidence Process form in the
moderately trawled areas. Of all the States that conducted bottom fishing activities in the
SPRFMO future convention area, only New Zealand had submitted an assessment, based
on the best scientific evidence available, as to whether individual bottom fishing activities
by its vessels would have serious adverse impacts on VMEs and the long-term
sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks, in accordance with paragraph 83 (a) of resolution
61/105.
170. The Republic of Korea reported that it had implemented the interim measures
adopted by SPRFMO that required all fishing vessels flying the flag of participating States
to be equipped with VMS, carry onboard observers and restrain fishing efforts to existing
levels.
55
A/64/…
171. Peru has participated actively in negotiations for the establishment of SPRFMO,
which was to address the conservation and management of straddling stocks of pelagic or
deep-sea species in the high seas of the South Pacific region. The United States and Chile
reported that they had not been engaged in any bottom fishing activities in the SPRFMO
future convention area, but they were participating in the interim Scientific and Data
Working Groups mandated to review bottom fishing activity assessments submitted by
participants. Similarly, Canada was not currently fishing in the SPRFMO area, but it
shared its expertise in international fisheries governance so that gaps in the management
of high seas fishing were addressed.
5.
Measures taken by States for areas where no competent RFMO/A exists
172. Several States (Australia, Cook Islands, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Russian
Federation, Spain, United Kingdom, United States) and the EC have taken measures to
adopt and implement conservation and management measures in high seas areas where
there were no competent RFMO/As or no interim measures were in place, in accordance
with paragraph 86 of General Assembly resolution 61/105.
173. Australia indicated that in order to comply with resolution 61/105, it had taken
unilateral action to impose new conditions on vessels flying its flag operating in the area
to be governed by SIOFA. Moreover, it had adopted a precautionary approach which
recognized that all areas of the high seas might potentially contain VMEs, and in the
absence of information to identify and assess impacts of activities on such ecosystems,
management measures had been implemented for all Australia’s high seas bottom fishing
effort to prevent significant adverse impacts on potential VMEs. Permit requirements for
bottom fishing in the high seas include conservation and management measures to limit
bottom fishing activities in the South Pacific Ocean to those areas that had already been
fished by Australia between 2002 and 2006, providing protection to unidentified VMEs in
unfished areas.
174. In addition, Australia had collected detailed information on fishing trips through
reporting requirements, and had imposed 100 per cent observer coverage upon all vessels
using demersal trawl gear, while a minimum of 10 per cent observer coverage was
required for vessels using other demersal fishing methods. All approved bottom fishing
activities were required to cease within a radius of five nautical miles after an encounter
with identified VMEs, indicated by the presence of 50 kilograms or more of coral or
sponges. Further, any such encounter was required to be reported to the Australian
Fisheries Management Authority to allow the adoption of appropriate measures.
56
A/64/…
175. The Cook Islands had voluntarily agreed not to register or authorize any new vessels
flying its flag to enter deep sea fisheries in the Southern Indian Ocean, in the absence of
an appropriate agreement that had the competence to regulate capacity and review the
status of the resources. It had also mandated its vessels operating in the Southern Indian
Ocean to implement, inter alia, vessel data recording activities, including recording of bycatch cold-water corals and other benthos, and collect biological information. There had
also been a voluntary declaration by the Government and licensed operators of a number
of BPAs where fishing operations were not allowed to be carried out. The criteria for
selecting BPAs were as follows: geographical extent, seabed morphology representation,
and prior exposure to fishing and availability of biological data.
176. Japan noted that there were not enough research activities to determine the existence
of VMEs in the SIOFA Convention Area. In addition, since its fishing vessels used bottom
line fishing gear in the area, which had less impacts on VMEs than trawl fisheries, it did
not consider it necessary to implement mitigation measures. Japan also stressed that, like
other participants in the SIOFA negotiations, it agreed to take measures to ensure the
sustainable use of target species in the SIOFA Convention Area.
177. In 2008, the EC adopted a regulation on the protection of VMEs in the high seas from
the adverse impacts of bottom fishing gear, in areas not covered by RFMO/A measures
(Council Regulation No. 734/2008). The Regulation introduced a system of special fishing
permits issued by EC Member States if specific conditions for issuance, including the
submission of a detailed fishing plan, have been met by applicants. The competent
authorities would grant special fishing permits after they had carried out assessments of
the potential impacts of the intended fishing activities and concluded that such activities
were not likely to have significant adverse impacts on VMEs. The use of bottom fishing
gear was prohibited in areas where no proper scientific assessments had been conducted.
The Regulation also contained provisions on unforeseen encounters with VMEs, area
closures and an observer scheme for all vessels that have been issued a special fishing
permit. The South-West Atlantic Ocean where no RFMO/A was competent to regulate
bottom fisheries, and the Southern Indian Ocean where no interim measures had been
adopted within SIOFA by 31 December 2008, were the main areas addressed by the
Regulation. The EC was in the process of assessing the first reports on how the Regulation
had been implemented.
178. Spain reported that it had conducted MSR in high seas areas of the South-West
Atlantic where its vessels conducted bottom trawling, with a view to mapping and
identifying VMEs. The results of the MSR would be made public at the end of 2009 and
would serve as a basis for determining the areas to be protected. Pending the presentation
57
A/64/…
of the results of the investigation, a mitigating measure restricting fishing activities to the
area where fisheries took place in the past (historical footprint) was adopted, in accordance
with General Assembly resolution 61/105. It had also established mandatory rules to be
followed by its vessels in the event of encounters with VMEs. Portugal reported that it had
not issued any fishing permits to vessels flying its flag for areas beyond national
jurisdiction where there was no RFMO/A.
179. The United Kingdom reported that fishing vessels flying its flag were allowed to
conduct bottom trawling operations on the high seas of the South-West Atlantic, only if
they had a fishing licence. Licence conditions included the obligation to ensure
compliance with conservation measures, the restriction of bottom trawling to those areas
previous trawled for the last 40 to 50 years, the use of a functioning VMS, the requirement
of full catch data, and the obligation to carry an observer and avoid areas containing deep
water corals. In addition, no new deep water areas were allowed to be fished without an
environmental impact assessment.
180. The Republic of Korea reported that it had also been conducting bottom fisheries in
the South-West Atlantic and, in accordance with resolution 61/105, it had initiated
discussions with relevant countries for the adoption of a proper conservation and
management regime for the area. It had organized several workshops for bottom fishing
industries to raise awareness of the importance of protecting VMEs. In application of the
precautionary approach, in December 2008, the fishing authorities of the Republic of
Korea issued an “Administrative Directive for Implementing International Regulation
regarding Bottom Fishing in the High Seas” to regulate bottom fishing activities in areas
where there was no RFMO/A or process for the establishment of such an organization or
arrangement. The Directive provided a definition of VMEs, significant adverse impacts
and bottom fishing, and required vessels to report and relocate when encountering VMEs,
as well as to install VMS. In 2009, additional elements were included in the Directive,
now published as Regulation No. 2009-27, such as the issuance of separate fishing
licences for bottom fisheries on the high seas based on an assessment of potential impacts
of fishing activities, and a requirement for relocation to an alternative site at a minimum
distance of one mile from the site of any encounter with VMEs.
181. The United States reported that no vessels flying its flag were authorized to conduct
bottom fisheries in areas beyond national jurisdiction. In 2005, it had decided that, as
matter of policy, the United States would not issue new permits for vessels to fish on
seamounts on the high seas until consultations required under its National Environmental
Policy Act and Endangered Species Act were held. Domestic legislation was being updated
to reflect that policy. In particular, the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Management
58
A/64/…
Act, as amended in 2007, qualified as illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing,
activities that had adverse impacts on seamounts, hydrothermal vents, and cold-water
corals located beyond national jurisdiction, for which there were no applicable RFMO/A
conservation measures.
182. New Zealand stated that the only vessels flying its flag authorized to undertake
bottom fishing activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction were those conducting such
fishing in areas where conservation and management measures had been adopted and
implemented pursuant to paragraphs 83 or 85 of resolution 61/105, i.e. the CCAMLR
Convention Area and the high seas areas subject to SPRFMO interim measures.
183. In addition to its effort to implement measures to regulate bottom fisheries in the
North Atlantic, the Russian Federation reported that it planned to research areas with
VMEs in the Barents Sea with a view to developing measures to protect such ecosystems
from bottom fisheries.
C.
Actions taken by States and competent RFMO/As to make adopted measures
publicly available
1.
Publicity of measures adopted by competent RFMO/As
184. Paragraph 84 of General Assembly resolution 61/105 called upon RFMO/As with the
competence to regulate bottom fisheries to make the measures adopted pursuant to
paragraph 83 of the resolution publicly available. The following RFMOs maintained
websites that detailed and publicized their conservation and management measures:
-
NAFO maintained a public website on which it published all adopted
documents and reports including the NAFO Conservation and Enforcement
Measures (www.nafo.int);
-
NEAFC had a public website on which it published all relevant documents,
including those related to bottom fishing and VMEs (www.neafc.org);
-
SEAFO maintained a website with details of the conservation and
management measures that have been adopted on bottom fishing activities
(www.seafo.org); and
-
CCAMLR had a website on which it published a detailed description of the
conservation measures adopted and implemented. The CCAMLR Secretariat
annually compiled a list of vessels authorized to fish pursuant to the adopted
59
A/64/…
conservation measures, which was made public on CCAMLR’s website
(www.ccamlr.org ).
2.
Publicity of measures adopted by States
185. Paragraph 85 of General Assembly resolution 61/105 called upon States to make
interim measures adopted in accordance with the resolution publicly available. Paragraph
87 of the resolution also called upon States to make publicly available through FAO a list
of those vessels flying their flag authorized to conduct bottom fisheries in areas beyond
national jurisdiction, and the measures they had adopted pursuant to paragraph 86 of the
resolution. In this regard, the United States and the EC indicated that they strongly
supported transparency and the publication of measures as called for in General Assembly
resolution 61/105, as this was necessary to evaluate the efficiency of the framework
adopted under the resolution.
(a)
Publicity of interim measures
186. In accordance with paragraph 85 of resolution 61/105, the Interim Secretariats of the
SPRFMO and NWPO maintained websites which publicized the interim measures that had
been adopted (www.southpacificrfmo.org and http://nwpbfo.nomaki.jp/index.html).
Australia, the EC and the Republic of Korea also reported that their measures adopted
pursuant to paragraph 86 of the resolution had been published in official publications.
(b)
Publicity of measures through FAO
187. Several States reported on their actions taken in accordance with paragraph 87 of
resolution 61/105 (Australia, Cook Islands, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, United
States). Australia reported that, once confidentiality issues arising under national law were
addressed, it hoped to provide a list of vessels authorized to conduct bottom fisheries in
areas beyond national jurisdiction to FAO. In the interim, a list has been compiled of all
relevant fishing trips taken by Australian flagged vessels. The Cook Islands reported that
all information referred to in paragraph 87 of the resolution had been conveyed to FAO.
Cuba has compiled a list of the vessels that sailed under the Cuban flag and were
conducting fishing activities in waters under Mexican jurisdiction, in accordance with a
bilateral agreement signed by the two States on 26 July 1976.
60
A/64/…
188. New Zealand’s high seas register, which was publicly available, recorded the details
of all New Zealand flagged vessels permitted to fish in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
New Zealand was compiling a list for submission to FAO of its flagged vessels that were
issued high seas permits to undertake bottom fishing in 2008 and 2009. The United States
reported that none of its flagged vessels were authorized to conduct bottom fisheries in
areas beyond national jurisdiction. It indicated that the requirements for vessels operating
in certain areas within national jurisdiction were available on the internet.
IV.
Activities of FAO to promote the regulation of bottom fisheries and the
protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems
189. Paragraph 88 of General Assembly resolution 61/105 emphasized the critical role
played by FAO in providing expert technical advice, assisting with international fisheries
policy development and management standards, and collecting and disseminating
information on fisheries-related issues, including the protection of vulnerable marine
ecosystems from the impacts of fishing. Paragraph 90 of the resolution further invited
FAO to consider creating a global database of information on VMEs in areas beyond
national jurisdiction to assist States in assessing any impacts of bottom fisheries on such
ecosystems and invited States and RFMO/As to submit information to any such database
on all VMEs identified in accordance with paragraph 83 of the resolution.
190. The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the subsequent FAO
Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, provide a useful framework for
considering the impacts of potentially destructive fishing practices on VMEs.88 In
addition, FAO has undertaken a series of activities and organized workshops in order to
gain an overview of information necessary for the development of international guidelines
for the management of deep-sea fisheries in the high sea. Together with these activities,
FAO has over the last two years, undertaken a major review of deep-sea fisheries in the
high seas. The report entitled “Worldwide Review of Bottom Fisheries in the High Seas”
presented the “current picture” of high seas bottom fisheries. The report was prepared by
reviewing data from the 2003 to 2006 period, and would be updated on a continuous
basis.89
191. FAO has also been collaborating with other relevant organizations and agencies with
regard to both fisheries issues and the protection of marine biodiversity, including through
88
89
FAO, The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries: FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, No. 4, Supp. 2 (Rome, 2003).
Worldwide Review of Bottom Fisheries in the High Seas, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 522, 2008.
61
A/64/…
the FAO Fishery Resources Monitoring System. A website has been established that
provided a comprehensive, one-stop source of information on world fishery resources
(http://firms.fao.org/firms/en), including data on catches, fishing fleet activities, stock
levels and management practices.
192. FAO has maintained a list of authorized vessels engaging in high seas fisheries, in
accordance with the Compliance Agreement. The list only covered those vessels under the
flags of the parties to the Compliance Agreement (currently 38 States and the EC), and
information regarding specified gears, operating areas and main species targeted (e.g.
deep-sea bottom trawl or tuna purse seine) was not usually included. The data in the list
was often out of date due to lack of or late responses, and were not publicly available. The
global list of fishing vessels currently under consideration was aimed at resolving those
deficiencies. The FAO report “Worldwide Review of Bottom Fisheries in the High Seas”
contained a detailed analysis of the fleets involved in these fisheries worldwide as reported
to FAO in a questionnaire distributed to States with vessels operating in the high seas.
A.
Development of the International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea
Fisheries in the High Seas
193. The FAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the
High Seas were developed at the request of the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI), at its
twenty-seventh session in March 2007.90 Following a process involving expert
consultations and workshops, a FAO Technical Consultation finalized and adopted the
International Guidelines in August 2008.91 The International Guidelines contained
standards and criteria for identifying VMEs beyond areas under national jurisdiction and
the impacts of fishing activities on such ecosystems, in order to facilitate the adoption and
implementation of conservation and management measures by RFMO/As and flag States,
pursuant to paragraphs 83 and 86 of General Assembly resolution 61/105. With regard to
the identification of VMEs, the FAO International Guidelines indicated that a marine
ecosystem should be classified as vulnerable based on the characteristics it possesses. In
this respect, the FAO International Guidelines provided the following list of characteristics
to be used as criteria in the identification of VMEs: (i) uniqueness or rarity; (ii) functional
significance of the habitat; (iii) fragility; (iv) life-history traits of component species that
make recovery difficult; and (v) structural complexity.92
FAO Fisheries Report No.830.
FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No. 881.
92 Annex F of the Report of the Technical Consultation on International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in
90
91
62
A/64/…
194. Following the adoption of the International Guidelines, FAO developed a programme
proposal for future activities on deep-sea fisheries in the high seas, which had four main
components: (i) support tools for the implementation of the FAO International Guidelines,
(ii) a VME database, (iii) support for management activities in areas without RFMO/A
regulation, and (iv) global coordination, monitoring and evaluation and dissemination of
information. 93 The proposed programme received considerable support when it was
presented to FAO members at the twenty-eighth session of the FAO COFI held March
2009. Initial activities were scheduled to commence in August 2009. However, most of the
financial support necessary to pursue the programme still needed to be mobilized.
B.
Development of a global database of information on VMEs beyond national
jurisdiction
195. At its twenty-seventh session, COFI agreed that FAO should follow the request in
paragraph 90 of General Assembly resolution 61/105 to create a global database on VMEs
in areas beyond national jurisdiction, in cooperation with other relevant organizations,
such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature.94
196. FAO reported that initial work supporting the creation of a global database on VMEs
in areas beyond national jurisdiction had been undertaken in the current project dealing
with deep-sea fisheries, though such a database was not part of the original project
activities. A definition of a “vulnerable marine ecosystem” was developed through a
workshop and then further developed and adopted at the Technical Consultation for the
Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas.95 It had also been working on the
development of a large project to assist with the implementation of the FAO International
Guidelines. The development of a VME database was an important component of this
project. Furthermore, FAO was collaborating with other relevant organizations and
agencies with regard to both fisheries and the protection of marine biodiversity, including
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
197. In their submissions to this report, several States (Canada, New Zealand, Republic of
Korea, Russian Federation, United States) and the EC welcomed the adoption of the FAO
International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas. They
expressed their readiness to actively engage in the FAO programme for the
the High Seas. Rome, 4-8 February and 25-29 August 2008.
COFI/2009/5 Rev.1.
94 FAO Fisheries Report No.830.
95 FAO Fisheries and Acquaculture Report No. 881.
93
63
A/64/…
implementation of the International Guidelines and endeavoured to collect available
scientific information and take other necessary actions for this purpose. They also stressed
their support for FAO’s critical role in addressing the issue of deep-sea fisheries, including
by actively participating in meetings, consultations, workshops and actions in the
development of the FAO International Guidelines. States indicated that the FAO
International Guidelines had great importance, as they provided tangible direction to
fisheries managers and operators in the protection of VMEs against the effects of fishing
by further detailing key concepts in General Assembly resolution 61/105, such as the
definition of “vulnerable marine ecosystem”, the components of an “assessment”, and
examples of mitigation measures.
198. In addition, States expressed appreciation for the FAO’s role in providing assistance
in the management of deep-sea fisheries in the high seas and the protection of VMEs,
including through the series of actions outlined in paragraph 89 of the resolution. It was
suggested that the FAO should continue its work on biodiversity mapping, as it would
contribute to the implementation of the ecosystem approach to fisheries management, and
also follow the request in paragraph 87 of the resolution to create a list of authorized
vessels engaged in high seas deep-sea fisheries.
V.
Concluding remarks
199. The international community has responded to the call for action in
General Assembly resolution 61/105 and a wide range of measures have been adopted to
address the impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems, both in areas
within and beyond national jurisdiction, including closing areas to fishing, developing
tools to identify VMEs, prohibiting certain fishing practices in areas with VMEs,
restricting gear types and use, collecting data and conducting research, establishing MPAs
in areas within national jurisdiction, and more comprehensive and rigorous use of
scientific advice.
200. Despite progress, implementation of the resolution has been uneven and further
efforts are needed in this regard, including through the adoption and implementation of
conservation and management measures to address the impacts of bottom fishing activities
on VMEs. In particular, further efforts are needed to expedite negotiations to establish new
RFMO/As competent to regulate bottom fisheries, in order to close the gap in high seas
fisheries governance. Pending the establishment of these RFMO/As, all States conducting
bottom fishing operations in future convention areas should strive to implement the
64
A/64/…
interim measures adopted by States participating in these negotiations. Flag States whose
vessels are conducting fishing activities in areas of the high seas where no RFMO/A exists
should also adopt and implement conservation and management measures for these areas,
in respect of their flagged vessels, pursuant to paragraph 86 of the resolution.
201. Protecting VMEs from bottom fishing activities is an ongoing process and additional
actions may be needed when new information is acquired and developed. Important in this
respect will be the development of support tools, including a global database on VMEs, as
many countries lack the capacity to identify VMEs and assess whether individual bottom
fishing activities have significant adverse impacts.
202. More broadly, further efforts are needed to increase cooperation and coordination on
data collection and sharing, and for capacity-building and transfer of appropriate
technology to developing States to ensure their participation in deep sea fisheries and the
protection of VMEs.
65
A/64/…
Annex
List of respondents to the questionnaire
States and entities
Australia
Benin
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Chad
Cook Islands
Croatia
Cuba
European Community
Iraq
Japan
Kuwait
Lithuania
New Zealand
Norway
Oman
Peru
Qatar
Republic of Korea
Russian Federation
Senegal
Seychelles
Slovak Republic
Suriname
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
United States
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
Yemen
United Nations agencies, programmes and funds, and
related organizations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs/Division for Sustainable Development,
United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
World Trade Organization
66
A/64/…
Other intergovernmental organizations
Association of South East Asian Nations
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission/United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
The World Bank
Regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna
Interim secretariat for Management of High Seas Bottom Fisheries in the
North Western Pacific Ocean
Interim secretariat of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management
Organisation
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization
North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission
Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency
South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization
Secretariat of the Pacific Community
Non-governmental organizations
Deep Sea Conservation Coalition
National Fisheries Institute
Wildlife Conservation Society
67